Re: Tiny fragments issues

["Vishwas Manral" <vishwas.ietf at gmail.com>]

Hi Suresh,

So are you suggesting the non-last fragment size of less than 1280,
example 1200.

I still have a doubt on this one. Can we state that the first fragment
should have the complete TCP/ UDP headers? I find this essential for
the case of stateless filtering, which are easier to do at line rate
in the hardware.

Thanks,
Vishwas

On 5/17/07, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan at ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 2.0 wrote:
> >       my take on this is that, for non-final fragment, the packet size must
> >       not be smaller than 1280 bytes.  there's no valid use for smaller
> >       fragments (unless you have special network with MTU < 1280).
>
> I tend to disagree. I do think there are cases where it makes sense to
> have smaller non-final fragments. One example I can think about right
> away is that there is a tunnel somewhere between the source and the
> destination. In this case I would limit myself to a fragment size of
> less than 1280 to avoid further fragmentation.
>
> Cheers
> Suresh
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6 at ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------