Subject: RE: [NSIS] framework: proposal on fragmentation

From: "Hancock, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 16:24:24 +0100

aha!

> 
> No, I trying to explain it:
> If you have a network element without knowledge of the NSLP:s 
> requirment, the
> default should be to forward it to the next hop without doing 
> anything to the
> NSLP-messages.

*** and what if the message is too big to forward? ***
[which is where we started...]

> regards Lasse

r.
_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

---

From: "Lars.Westberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 17:27:25 +0200

Use IP-fragmentation

-lasse

"Hancock, Robert" wrote:

>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                           Name: RMRL-Disclaimer.txt
>    RMRL-Disclaimer.txt    Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
>                       Encoding: 7bit

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 11:38:03 -0400

> Use IP-fragmentation

IP fragmentation is a problem for NATs.  That's a problem
for a discovery (addressed end-to-end) message, which in
turn is a problem for us if we wish to support a middlebox
application.

Melinda

---

From: Xiaoming Fu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 18:04:36 +0200

What about discovering also (max) MTU, in addition to next NTLP node's 
IP address? Then no intermdiate nodes between two NTLP peers should do 
fragmentation.

Xiaoming

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:27:47 -0700 (PDT)

> turn is a problem for us if we wish to support a middlebox

Worse, it's a problem for the IESG.

	    Mike