IPv6 day and tunnels

[mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta)]

Templin, Fred L wrote:

> I'm not sure that a randomly-chosen "skip" value is even
> necessary.

It is not necessary, because, for ID uniqueness fundamentalists,
single event is bad enough and for most operators, slight
possibility is acceptable.

> Outer fragmentation cooks the tunnel egresses at high
> data rates.

Have egresses with proper performance. That's the proper
operation.

> End systems are expected and required to
> reassemble on their own behalf.

That is not a proper operation of tunnels.

>> Thus, don't insist on having unique IDs so much.
> 
> Non-overlapping fragments are disallowed for IPv6, but
> I think are still allowed for IPv4. So, IPv4 still needs
> the unique IDs by virtue of rate limiting.

Even though there is no well defined value of MSL?

>> I'm talking about not protocol recommendation but proper
>> operation.
> 
> I don't see any operational guidance recommending the
> tunnel ingress to configure an MRU of 1520 or larger.

I'm talking about not operation guidance but proper
operation.

Proper operators can, without any guidance, perform proper
operation.

					Masataka Ohta