IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 08 February 2016 22:39 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94B201B3458 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 14:39:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 C6psN3vVMFOx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 14:39:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (relay3-d.mail.gandi.net [IPv6:2001:4b98:c:538::195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59B121B345D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 14:39:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mfilter22-d.gandi.net (mfilter22-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.150]) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF0DA809B; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 23:39:05 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter22-d.gandi.net
Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([IPv6:::ffff:217.70.183.195]) by mfilter22-d.gandi.net (mfilter22-d.gandi.net [::ffff:10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kyYRzi5jLcQG; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 23:39:04 +0100 (CET)
X-Originating-IP: 93.199.254.229
Received: from nar.local (p5DC7FEE5.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.199.254.229]) (Authenticated sender: cabo@cabo.im) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A4AC6A80C4; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 23:39:03 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <56B91905.4020801@tzi.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 23:39:01 +0100
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 4.0.8 (Macintosh/20151105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?
References: <CAOJ6w=EvzE3dM4Y2mFFR=9YyPBdmFu_jkF4-42LjkdbRd3yz_w@mail.gmail.com> <BLUPR05MB1985F5F2BB3118362C67B921AED50@BLUPR05MB1985.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <20160208200943.A615941B5B96@rock.dv.isc.org> <BLUPR05MB19857B918B236880CE8FE871AED50@BLUPR05MB1985.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BLUPR05MB19857B918B236880CE8FE871AED50@BLUPR05MB1985.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3G3tQ2qbmFhFIpeY3vzZEfoUhUs>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 22:39:09 -0000

Ronald Bonica wrote:
> The words "many" and "some" don't do justice to the conversation.  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world-02 provides more concrete numbers from real-world observation.

Ah, but the result is much simpler.

Some other real world data (Google QUIC experiments) already tell us
that a sizable part of the Internet (was it 7 %?) is not reachable via
UDP at all.  This just ups that number slightly for IPv6 and UDP
protocols that don't have their own segmentation.

UDP, it was nice to have known you.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email