Hi, David,
On 02/08/2016 03:56 PM, David Borman wrote:
On Feb 8, 2016, at 12:23 PM, Warren Kumari <warren(_at_)kumari(_dot_)net>
wrote:
...
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 9:05 AM David Borman
<dab(_at_)weston(_dot_)borman(_dot_)com>
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.
FWIW, when communicating with public {web, mail, DNS} servers, you get
packet drop rates of over 25% if you employ IPv6 fragmentation.
(My pleasure to hear from you ;-) )
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492