IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Mon, 21 January 2019 11:58 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 DC27C12DD85 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 03:58:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.642
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.142, 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, 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 Vbbzbx7KkesE for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 03:58:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 427CE12867A for <6lo@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 03:58:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=86698; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1548071901; x=1549281501; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=2vjTF1MsTelRwlMqNICwWad7FuSK4XTTcXhEHh69qxc=; b=bznZSokimq2yxp+4kkIJQcMjsfpCz5iE9Vkt8HV/xUmAUGSg0uvuXeTH IOBd+jZthd/fM99hiYYI6RBt8+bhSGkt/bpRuxRcLIHyu3HkPzrbCOpRX 1UxFTIJlSn+MuvqU3+1Zpzxspia3saPr4JVu1GEEzEK8X22KvVLjNffBG w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ADAADnskVc/4UNJK1iGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBgQ1ILmaBAicKg3eIGo10mAEUgWcLAQGEbAIXgkciNAkNAQMBAQIBAQJtKIVKAQEBAQMjCkwQAgEIEQQBASEBBgMCAgIwFAkIAgQBDQUIE4MIgR1kqy+BL4omjEEXgUA/hCOETgELAQYBLQkfglOCVwKPcZIvCQKSESCSFIoEkHICERSBJx84ZXFwFTuCbIIkAxeOHkExiD4BDheBCIEfAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,503,1539648000"; d="scan'208,217";a="228424678"
Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jan 2019 11:58:20 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x0LBwJYf029469 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 21 Jan 2019 11:58:20 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 05:58:19 -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; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 05:58:19 -0600
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Michel Veillette <Michel.Veillette@trilliant.com>, "Dario Tedeschi (dat@exegin.com)" <dat@exegin.com>
CC: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery maximum fragment size too small
Thread-Index: AdSndZWR57hFJ4urRuKS4TKoalj4mQABM4YAAAC0UuAAAbWVKwAApCxwAGWIdsABIykngAAXQR4QACDRQ3AAvZPR0A==
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 11:57:57 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 11:57:33 +0000
Message-ID: <e627c1f71e7549f7a18811bda2af67be@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> <48f5ac04c1c94585aa3b540c078b8a5a@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <BL0PR06MB50425B993E8D3521D82C04CC9A830@BL0PR06MB5042.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <BL0PR06MB5042E2E19DA2B57DF2921A869A830@BL0PR06MB5042.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR06MB5042E2E19DA2B57DF2921A869A830@BL0PR06MB5042.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: [10.55.22.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_e627c1f71e7549f7a18811bda2af67beXCHRCD001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.15, xch-aln-005.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-11.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/OBjMhqZJSsmvcKgqht2SVXeJ02g>
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: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 11:58:25 -0000

Works for me Michel :

So we need answers from the list. The choice on the table is either to reduce the datagram_tag field to 256 as illustrated below or to use a 4 bytes unit for links with large MTUs (more than 127 octets).

What do people think is more appropriate to their needs?

Pascal

From: Michel Veillette <Michel.Veillette@trilliant.com>
Sent: jeudi 17 janvier 2019 18:56
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>; Dario Tedeschi (dat@exegin.com) <dat@exegin.com>
Cc: 6lo@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery maximum fragment size too small

Hi Pascal

I'm sorry, the propose format in my last email doesn't fix the datagram total length limitation.
32 fragments of 512 bytes still limit the datagram to 16 kB.

Based on the following constraints:

  *   Up to 256 active datagram
  *   Up to 32 fragments
  *   Up to  64kB datagram
  *   Up to 2kB fragment (32 fragments of 2 kB = 64 kB datagram)

I recommend the following Dispatch type formats.

Alternatively, the original format with a 4 bytes unit will work for us but doesn't seem to address all potential issues.

                           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

From: Michel Veillette
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 9:04 PM
To: 'Pascal Thubert (pthubert)' <pthubert@cisco.com<mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>>; Dario Tedeschi (dat@exegin.com<mailto:dat@exegin.com>) <dat@exegin.com<mailto:dat@exegin.com>>
Cc: 6lo@ietf.org<mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery maximum fragment size too small

Using a 4 bytes unit for size and offset doesn't seem to fully solve all issues, this solution is still limited to 8 kB datagram.
About the dual formats proposal, I'm not convinced this problem is such we can't find a single format acceptable for everyone.
If maintaining an overhead of 6 bytes is a must, the solution below might be the best compromise.

                           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| fragment_size   |X|E| sequence|  datagram_tag   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         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 0|Y| Reserved  |  datagram_tag   |

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      |          RFRAG Acknowledgment Bitmap (32 bits)                |

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Regards,
Michel


From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com<mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 9:59 AM
To: Michel Veillette <Michel.Veillette@trilliant.com<mailto:Michel.Veillette@trilliant.com>>
Cc: 6lo@ietf.org<mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery maximum fragment size too small

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<mailto:Michel.Veillette@trilliant.com>>
Sent: mardi 15 janvier 2019 20:14
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com<mailto: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