[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RRG] A data point on transit MTU size



-----Original Message-----
From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:dino@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 3:13 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: RRG
Subject: Re: [RRG] A data point on transit MTU size

We've argued here about whether it's reasonable to assume >1500 byte
MTU on transit links, when running a LISP-type solution.

And if the assumption doesn't hold, then you fragment before
encapsulate. That is specified in the main LISP spec.

1) You can't use IPv4 fragmentation if DF=1.

Well, you could.

2) You can't send at high data rates if you use
  IPv4 fragmentation.

Yes, you can. That is implementation dependent.

IMHO, LISP should be SEALed. I will be here and ready
to talk about it whenever you are.

There is no reason to change our position.

Bigger fish to fry,
Dino



Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com


Dino

Here's a data point about the real world, as far as Internet
exchange
points at the southern end go:

http://list.waikato.ac.nz/pipermail/nznog/2008-September/014471.html

  Brian

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the word
'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg


--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg



--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg