IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lo] draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery maximum fragment size too small

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Wed, 16 January 2019 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03302130F46 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 06:59:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -19.052
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.052 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c3kxue5SrAgo for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 06:59:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79DD51294FA for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 06:59:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=51910; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1547650764; x=1548860364; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=tqbS8rINda4AMszCweljzhro656F3Guc1BzBzvR/2Mk=; b=QtKuKir5il6uslpMvpNxGd8B0meWyK6y3RCmhpQbCvjAFbxf6lJ8od1N 8K9ym2xLaDrphh47DZL08mgB97NCTFd4846mQbPTmtdmvJMM/e0ogtX5q 8eZwqlYVo+L9PzxYKXz/MEUpLQ6aN+zq1Kd3xPHF2jWWzERu2THp5GL5j k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ADAAAGRj9c/51dJa1jGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBgQ1ILmaBAicKg3eIGotfgg2XfoF7CwEBhGwCF4I8IjQJDQEDAQECAQECbSiFSgEBAQEDIwpMEAIBCBEEAQEhAQYDAgICMBQJCAIEDgUIgxuBHWSrPIEvijOMPxeBQD+EI4UPCR+CU4JXAo9pkicJApIJIJILmmcCERSBJx84gVZwFYMngiQDF44eQTGKE4EfAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,486,1539648000"; d="scan'208,217";a="226387398"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Jan 2019 14:59:23 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x0GExNsF028821 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 16 Jan 2019 14:59:23 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 08:59:22 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 08:59:22 -0600
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Michel Veillette <Michel.Veillette@trilliant.com>
CC: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery maximum fragment size too small
Thread-Index: AdSndZWR57hFJ4urRuKS4TKoalj4mQABM4YAAAC0UuAAAbWVKwAApCxwAGWIdsABIykngA==
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 14:59:21 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 14:58:25 +0000
Message-ID: <48f5ac04c1c94585aa3b540c078b8a5a@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <DM6PR06MB5049F52372AE45566A20A6ED9A8A0@DM6PR06MB5049.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <2637fc068daa40c09fe7927eb1e4f444@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>, <DM6PR06MB504964604648C90B3C1AC7A99A8A0@DM6PR06MB5049.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <9310ACC9-F99D-49BD-9E69-5CE99AD3B968@cisco.com> <DM6PR06MB50492B36FA25375C52BDDF239A8A0@DM6PR06MB5049.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR06MB50464D18F2D79E4EAF1EB9979A810@BYAPR06MB5046.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR06MB50464D18F2D79E4EAF1EB9979A810@BYAPR06MB5046.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.228.216.17]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_48f5ac04c1c94585aa3b540c078b8a5aXCHRCD001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.11, xch-rcd-001.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-6.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/6dbR_lWD7P0CmvbWcLGD_vcaITo>
Subject: Re: [6lo] draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery maximum fragment size too small
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 14:59:27 -0000

Hello Michel

I have not seen a strong argument against saying that the unit for size and offset is 4 bytes if the MTU is larger than 127 bytes. This keeps classical 802.15.4 with 1 octet and allows fragments of 512 with 802.15.4g. that would be the simplest and most economical way of doing it. The only issue is that the last fragment might be less than the fragment_size, but that can be found based on the frame size. This seems to be the best tradeoff to me.

As an alternate we could define both of the formats that you copied below, one as 1 1 1 0 1 0  and the other as 1 1 1 0 1 1 as follows:


                           1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                      |1 1 1 0 1 0 0|X|  datagram_tag |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |E| sequence|   fragment_size   |       fragment_offset         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                           1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                      |1 1 1 0 1 0 1 Y|  datagram_tag |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          RFRAG Acknowledgment Bitmap (32 bits)                |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

vs.

                           1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                      |1 1 1 0 1 1 0|X|         datagram_tag          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |E| sequence|   fragment_size   |       fragment_offset         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                           1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                      |1 1 1 0 1 1 1 Y|         datagram_tag          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          RFRAG Acknowledgment Bitmap (32 bits)                |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


what do you think?

Pascal



From: Michel Veillette <Michel.Veillette@trilliant.com>
Sent: mardi 15 janvier 2019 20:14
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery maximum fragment size too small

Hi Pascal

Did we reach any consensus about the RFRAG Dispatch type format?
See the last two formats proposed bellow.

Regards,
Michel

From: Michel Veillette
Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 2:28 PM
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com<mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>>
Cc: 6lo@ietf.org<mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery maximum fragment size too small

Hi Pascal

A 8 bits "datagram_tag" is a strict minimum in our case and peoples might have good arguments to keep this field aligned with RFC4944.
I also don't see how to implement a 10 bits or 12 bits "datagram_tag" without adding an octet.

I can go either way but my preference are:
- 16 bits datagram_tag
- 10 bits fragment_size
- 16 bits fragment_offset


                           1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                      |1 1 1 0 1 0 0|X|  datagram_tag |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |E| sequence|   fragment_size   |       fragment_offset         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                           1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                      |1 1 1 0 1 0 1 Y|  datagram_tag |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          RFRAG Acknowledgment Bitmap (32 bits)                |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

vs.

                           1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                      |1 1 1 0 1 0 0|X|         datagram_tag          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |E| sequence|   fragment_size   |       fragment_offset         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                           1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                      |1 1 1 0 1 0 1 Y|         datagram_tag          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          RFRAG Acknowledgment Bitmap (32 bits)                |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Regards,
Michel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email