IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Thu, 11 February 2016 14:05 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 B3A811B320C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:05:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.507
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 TSNHRzqou_Fv for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:05:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5A3B21B320A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:05:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 36758 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2016 13:46:00 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 11 Feb 2016 13:46:00 -0000
Subject: Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <CAOJ6w=EvzE3dM4Y2mFFR=9YyPBdmFu_jkF4-42LjkdbRd3yz_w@mail.gmail.com> <BLUPR05MB1985F5F2BB3118362C67B921AED50@BLUPR05MB1985.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <20160208200943.A615941B5B96@rock.dv.isc.org> <CAMm+LwgLoYpQ1TNOTOuJzh+cu+GyRBf9=y_K7K35boQ9WcZKjA@mail.gmail.com> <56B92A96.9050200@si6networks.com> <CAMm+LwifTXvVd1mPZOfcOOR03Fnj-82H9aDVS01=wGezePtnXw@mail.gmail.com> <56BA4BC7.1010002@isi.edu> <CAMm+Lwi-n=be4AWGibs+Zq9egYw5pSDmPGb-4P0LDEcX1E6osA@mail.gmail.com> <56BA68CE.7090304@isi.edu> <CAMm+LwiM2sFUeejgJZe650UQbVHrh7EHrEF2omvPrZJPodgJLA@mail.gmail.com> <56BA739D.7060309@isi.edu> <CAMm+Lwij1dOkK0b2ZnJiPMtba=wc823WgYjqw0iwAApa3KBYcg@mail.gmail.com> <56BA95C7.8060109@isi.edu> <56BAD6CC.2030209@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <56BBAAF7.6020903@isi.edu>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <56BC9516.6050305@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 23:05:10 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56BBAAF7.6020903@isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5trTKE3_FMZIFfxQ_Sj4XzdGNd8>
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: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:05:18 -0000

Joe Touch wrote:

> I repeat: nodes that encap or decap are acting as sources or sinks, not
> relays.

I'm afraid firewalls are relays.

> Nodes such as NATs and firewalls act as end hosts on the public side and
> routers on the private side. Which is why they need to obey RFC1122
> semantics on the public side.

So, you think firewalls should reassemble fragments. Wow!

							Masataka Ohta

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email