On 2/8/16 10:56 AM, David Borman wrote: > >> On Feb 8, 2016, at 12:23 PM, Warren Kumari <warren@xxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: > ... >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 9:05 AM David Borman <dab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: > ... >> So if you are writing an application that needs >1500 octets, use >> an IPv6 implementation that supports >1500 octet fragmentation and >> reassembly. >> >> ... but as an application writer (or, basically anyone else), I >> have no control over the "IPv6 implementation". Even if I'm in an >> environment where I do control the OS / model of all devices, and I >> know they support >1500 octet, it seems like a bad idea to *rely* >> on that. Sometime I'm going to want to change OS / add some other >> device, be able to interact with some other system. This sounds >> like vendor lock at its worst… > > If you wind up in a scenario where you get locked to a particular OS > vendor because it’s the only one that supports IPv6 fragmentation > >1500 octets, then that is probably the least of your worries. I’d > be much more worried about IPv6 fragmentation in light of Ron > Bonica’s comment that intermediary nodes drop packets with extension > headers, which is bad news even for fragmented packets in the > 1280-1500 range. For those of us with ecmp load balancing the challenge of associating a fragement with the rest of the flow are also a problem. In my own case I can engineer circumstances where I should never receive such a fragment, so I can safely drop them anyway but I doubt everyone has that luxury. > -David > > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature