[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New fragment header, was: Re: Evolution of the IP model - ICMP and MTUs
On 19 aug 2008, at 18:32, Chip Popoviciu (cpopovic) wrote:
But if the HbH is present, the packet will hit the slow path anyway so
performance penalties are there. If the HbH is not present then the
first header will be the fragmentation header.
Good point. But then it's also no problem to look for the hop-by-hop
header after the fragment header, right?
On 20 aug 2008, at 9:59, Rémi Després wrote:
- The fragmentation header would be simpler than in your initial
proposal below (just Identification, Fragment Offset, M).
You mean, the current IPv6 fragment header. But then:
DCCP seems to me the right direction for graceful transmission of
datagrams that exceed path MTUs through filtering devices.
...the port numbers are still only in the first fragment, so filtering
remains somewhat problematic and NATing very problematic.