On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 2/8/2016 4:47 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > ... >> Problem is that most of us have ethernet hubs rather than true IP >> switches. If we had real IP everywhere we could deprecate MAC >> addresses. > > Except that we derive self-assigned IPv6 addresses from MAC addresses. If we didn't need them to be MAC addresses we could go to EUI-64 and have 16 shiny new bits to play with. On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 2/8/2016 2:44 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> I would note that tunnel mechanisms either need a very good path "size" >> reporting mechanism or a way to fragment. > > If you don't have a way to fragment, you end up with a hard limit on the > amount of tunneling and tunnel overhead. Otherwise, at some point, you > end up with a "size" of zero. By definition a tunnel has two ends. There is no reason why fragmentation in a tunnel should make use of IP fragmentation as opposed to an in-tunnel fragmentation scheme.