blank.gif (43 bytes)

Church Of The
Swimming Elephant

Search:
4.2.2.7 Fragmentation: RFC 791 Section 3.2 Connected: An Internet Encyclopedia
4.2.2.7 Fragmentation: RFC 791 Section 3.2

Up: Connected: An Internet Encyclopedia
Up: Requests For Comments
Up: RFC 1812
Up: 4. INTERNET LAYER - PROTOCOLS
Up: 4.2 INTERNET PROTOCOL - IP
Up: 4.2.2 PROTOCOL WALK-THROUGH
Prev: 4.2.2.6 Unrecognized Header Options: RFC 791 Section 3.1
Next: 4.2.2.8 Reassembly: RFC 791 Section 3.2

4.2.2.7 Fragmentation: RFC 791 Section 3.2

4.2.2.7 Fragmentation: RFC 791 Section 3.2

Fragmentation, as described in [INTERNET:1], MUST be supported by a router.

When a router fragments an IP datagram, it SHOULD minimize the number of fragments. When a router fragments an IP datagram, it SHOULD send the fragments in order. A fragmentation method that may generate one IP fragment that is significantly smaller than the other MAY cause the first IP fragment to be the smaller one.

DISCUSSION

There are several fragmentation techniques in common use in the Internet. One involves splitting the IP datagram into IP fragments with the first being MTU sized, and the others being approximately the same size, smaller than the MTU. The reason for this is twofold. The first IP fragment in the sequence will be the effective MTU of the current path between the hosts, and the following IP fragments are sized to minimize the further fragmentation of the IP datagram. Another technique is to split the IP datagram into MTU sized IP fragments, with the last fragment being the only one smaller, as described in [INTERNET:1].

A common trick used by some implementations of TCP/IP is to fragment an IP datagram into IP fragments that are no larger than 576 bytes when the IP datagram is to travel through a router. This is intended to allow the resulting IP fragments to pass the rest of the path without further fragmentation. This would, though, create more of a load on the destination host, since it would have a larger number of IP fragments to reassemble into one IP datagram. It would also not be efficient on networks where the MTU only changes once and stays much larger than 576 bytes. Examples include LAN networks such as an IEEE 802.5 network with a MTU of 2048 or an Ethernet network with an MTU of 1500).

One other fragmentation technique discussed was splitting the IP datagram into approximately equal sized IP fragments, with the size less than or equal to the next hop network's MTU. This is intended to minimize the number of fragments that would result from additional fragmentation further down the path, and assure equal delay for each fragment.

Routers SHOULD generate the least possible number of IP fragments.

Work with slow machines leads us to believe that if it is necessary to fragment messages, sending the small IP fragment first maximizes the chance of a host with a slow interface of receiving all the fragments.


Next: 4.2.2.8 Reassembly: RFC 791 Section 3.2

Connected: An Internet Encyclopedia
4.2.2.7 Fragmentation: RFC 791 Section 3.2

Cotse.Net

Protect yourself from cyberstalkers, identity thieves, and those who would snoop on you.
Stop spam from invading your inbox without losing the mail you want. We give you more control over your e-mail than any other service.
Block popups, ads, and malicious scripts while you surf the net through our anonymous proxies.
Participate in Usenet, host your web files, easily send anonymous messages, and more, much more.
All private, all encrypted, all secure, all in an easy to use service, and all for only $5.95 a month!

Service Details

 
.
www.cotse.com
Have you gone to church today?
.
All pages ©1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 Church of the Swimming Elephant unless otherwise stated
Church of the Swimming Elephant©1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 Cotse.com.
Cotse.com is a wholly owned subsidiary of Packetderm, LLC.

Packetderm, LLC
210 Park Ave #308
Worcester, MA 01609