MTU path discovery and IPSec

Joe Maimon jmaimon at ttec.com
Fri Dec 5 01:59:36 UTC 2003



Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:

>Crist Clark wrote:
>  
>
>>Joe Maimon wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Tony Rall wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>On Wednesday, 2003-12-03 at 09:38 PST, David Sinn <dsinn at dsinn.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>><snipped>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>(And note that frag 1 often is not the first fragment to arrive at
>>>>downstream nodes.  In my example in (1), frequently frag 2 will reach
>>>>places before frag 1 does (if any router along the path reorders its
>>>>transmit queue based on packet size).)
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I agree with all I have snipped.
>>>I was wondering would it not be wiser for fraggers to frag in half
>>>instead of just the overflow?
>>>
>>>For instance, suppose router has to fragment 1500 byte packet to go over
>>>1476 GRE. Instead of having  a big packet/little fragment why not just
>>>divide in half?
>>>This would give them more equal buffer treatment, but an even bigger
>>>potential win is to avoid perhaps a second (maybe ipsec?) fragmenting
>>>later on down the pipe.
>>>
>>>Once you are going to do it, do it right. It is not as if your
>>>decreasing header overhead by producing small fragment packets. And I am
>>>assuming the whole packet is already in buffer when it comes time to
>>>fragment it.
>>>      
>>>
>>Programmers are lazy.
>>
>>Excerise for the reader:
>>
>>Devise an algorthm that will take an arbitrarily sized packet 20-65535
>>octets and an arbitrarily sized MTU, > 576 octets, and split the
>>packet into the minimum number of "n" fragments where each fragment is
>>(1) less than the MTU, (2) no two fragments differ by more than 8 octets,
>>and the fragments obey the IP fragmentation rules, (3) data payload must
>>end on an 8-octet boundary for all but the last fragment and (4) each
>>fragment has an exact copy of the original header except for differences
>>in the fragmentation fields and checksum.
>>
>>Compare to the algorithm of cutting the data in to "m" (mtu - ip_hl)-
>>chunks and putting the leftovers into the final fragment.
>>    
>>
>
>I've got to jump in and display my considerable ignorance here.
>
>Are there not machines in service now that start blatting bits out
>(when able) before the whole packet has been recieved?
>
>Given that to be correct, it would seem to be Really Hard to whack up
>a packet into equal-sized chunks (given that it is otherwise a Good
>Thing To Do) on-the-fly.  Lazy programmers (which I have long taught
>are the Best Kind) will blat out bits until the buffer is full,
>start a new buffer, rinse, lather, repeat until the input buffer
>is exhausted.
>
>Where did I go into the ditch?
>  
>
Maybe because IP tells the length of the packet up front?

>
>  
>






More information about the NANOG mailing list