IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Draft mentioned in meeting re: fragmentation .

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Thu, 21 November 2019 08:33 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E2391208A1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:33:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 0ZqpYCc_Siyo for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:33:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2a.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E81B120801 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:33:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2a.google.com with SMTP id cg2so1049484qvb.10 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:33:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nfe27Z2ZjmbqcmJmJYVtfVsfjh3xcJUF2SCiMRs8Yjw=; b=r60pfjV+v4swaMNjYCp8bhwMED6PCx8/diV2c31ejHgqJSJQSidNqNEIH8ShtEzU7d XRhkjWgKEgB+hNPOgGAeqzFw+MseSdPvFwjZPvgLUV3l305X40dW4ldoB9OTeC43vEAx ZIszH9x2LvIqlOwBG7cfZ5gRTZ3rrOkVAblszx6OuAqW6tODzDaQHFQluV/iGLUUr+cG jJscNx25muoU+ubNmxv8CoJUpCW4Y/Qi7rqYcnkU9KB392b5YevF33bpYm4LBlsQuMBY z5vFgqvHYdaO9K7Ezn5EPm5dBpStmAD1kUpkyN/34nQZtNOuVRrUR0fhPJ37RhK3H0Vj e8hw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nfe27Z2ZjmbqcmJmJYVtfVsfjh3xcJUF2SCiMRs8Yjw=; b=BBmHXpY2FgIjjglJZzPgJZtrLUpmB+5OnUn8O3UvsZHAzEWcNh75qTCNbxDbAVO+i5 VQ7zBp096q+qYZeBRmMieFrgN6ZicXAb08+hJgzECP1OWa1MOnVxABAFvRxyDSlB1fck d7rOk2SbKkGXLrIhlyOEB3cfXF+mfC/pqx/zOlC7YSWhAg7V5hjibXZAx/+ZSev96LPJ 1p3wH3xkCVt+vuNLaPV7pgEjHFB0Yd6IPfQ/7PbcbFiJi17Z4toBzU7BzvPldrg/XMQm FVQNkq1TaFBAVfQO307k7+F9E4YROmugPvk3k2Yh5sLeRLJ40Dceeov6VPz1OEDdVzWM 4Nmw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW75AI4Gdkrz7iGOlP0tk+HWWLPD4K89N1pErhrr2BrhZt/i0qk jXAJ7JfppIuzh6s1knWrqMmnzqvv9Fxa+f+LdtyLcAuoDjFzVA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxtsKHvb5FURVPF9vTagF7pbG2jHTVGVIEDVhe43AIqsJue/tiWsdgsrsJSzGpn/7mRKTxyBp3ZWYj8j8umQTI=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:8061:: with SMTP id 88mr7101839qva.62.1574325196174; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:33:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHw9_iLhqmfv9=2P2-Hybxd-ncctm8vk=eSo8S8jH+TDG6fhhg@mail.gmail.com> <5031667.0FC68XRKFj@linux-9daj>
In-Reply-To: <5031667.0FC68XRKFj@linux-9daj>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 16:32:38 +0800
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iK73+Ob8oLmXH9aB1ZLTYMGMSHZdNor_NUCrboWxak4ow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/E097XLQq6yFToQmHzidscdj6Wko>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Draft mentioned in meeting re: fragmentation .
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 08:33:19 -0000

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 3:54 PM Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 21 November 2019 06:54:47 UTC Warren Kumari wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >  IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile
> >                    draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-17
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile/
> >
> >
> > This is currently with the RFC Editor.
>
> can someone who knows the rfc editor please tell them that the reference in
> this section is incorrect:
>
> > 5.  Applications That Rely on IPv6 Fragmentation
> >
> >    The following applications rely on IPv6 fragmentation:
> >
> >    o  DNS [RFC1035]
> >    o  OSPFv3 [RFC2328][RFC5340]
> >    o  Packet-in-packet encapsulations
>
> that's pretty accurate. RFC 1035 specified 512 octets as the maximum UDP
> payload, because adding UDP and IP headers, and IP options, yielded the
> largest IP datagram size that receivers were required to be able to reassemble
> if fragmentation occurred (576). in practice, this only happened on
> experimental links whose MTU might have approached the minimum (68).
>
> in other words as much as i was stupid in EDNS for invoking fragmentation, it
> was technically permitted by DNS itself, though in practice, not used before
> EDNS.

Apologies, I was unable to parse the above -- what exactly is
incorrect? You said that the reference is incorrect, but then that
that is accurate.
What should it be changed to?

W

>
> --
> Paul
>
>


-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email