-----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 sizeWe'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.comDinoHere's a data point about the real world, as far as Internetexchangepoints 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