[153359] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 day and tunnels
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Tue Jun 5 13:22:38 2012
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 01:37:17 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65D374A86DD@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Templin, Fred L wrote:
>> Have egresses with proper performance. That's the proper
>> operation.
> How many core routers would be happy to reassemble at
> line rates without a forklift upgrade and/or strong
> administrative tuning?
You don't have to do it with core routers.
>>> End systems are expected and required to
>>> reassemble on their own behalf.
>>
>> That is not a proper operation of tunnels.
> Why not?
Lack of transparency.
>> Even though there is no well defined value of MSL?
>
> MSL is well defined. For TCP, it is defined in RFC793.
> For IPv4 reassembly, it is defined in RFC1122. For IPv6
> reassembly, it is defined in RFC2460.
As you can see, they are different values.
>> I'm talking about not operation guidance but proper
>> operation.
>
> The tunnel ingress cannot count on administrative tuning
> on the egress
I'm afraid you don't understand tunnel operation at all.
> No amount of proper operation can fix a platform that
> does not have adequate performance.
Choosing a proper platform is a part of proper operation.
Masataka Ohta
