Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 08 February 2016 23:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
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 D89531B3DB9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 15:56:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 j9AQ1qm0bDWe for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 15:56:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x229.google.com (mail-qk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::229]) (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 A9A191B3DA4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 15:56:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id s5so65045158qkd.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 15:56:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=N/TzD10LfSp9mn7NS9bRhrzIxbm98grG0WXYmqCYlEw=; b=bZuzgBQBNyGYxn5ZNq1vlP8TdLNZxwV2MpAJ1XhRyAiPJevPHRohD87Ug9uZ8osJGj u9z5FFoc6/KW37gr6rohBlszZTFqcy/3G4SVl2Eb5ActM+Rsh0L2Hf/cKuZzXZw8AD5q djeL2b/NKoGwn6DQmYNNOcC84WkTZ8kBz7DV0hvLXEOCfvjaMwrpTegezur0QjBL2ru7 6ugatB+r2EiG8CvUH1Ej2JQqaW/rGvDgzPFbiN5BzpYaHdpzyCadl/bG9RbO4e5MGipS cp7v2JjsM6/2qhqF+kCBXUuxg+cMSVf48xBOjxq3XlrY1TxnG4Z2+Z2b8Au7Sl+8GEw/ sMew==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=N/TzD10LfSp9mn7NS9bRhrzIxbm98grG0WXYmqCYlEw=; b=RIAyFSpjrHUexmAaQAgWX8SEoq9dRRnaulzGS49RbRokXHTCw85ijLJgXHDtciMubJ /GaYqaQEYjEoa+1lfWuwYrhxXpIXFFogwLxZwS2DEePCzuCr8QpOc0uFf0LN0R3L+s0j aBQstzNcDcyueT35eSOA/iME420sYAPy1+UapEGRhP5BJgjW3ZX8WxgEJkIDUdypwp8T Zy5J1WposH15W6XXwGRQaN7x1i9EUWDiXD6NPiMJHOnaL/oiLe6SAI08EVrI1/G7mZsS nALow9K6ikFNbQxtkaHwODB4fniLgOQp2swVJ0bDaUe4k83BECS5wh8QxosXvXVW0S2+ nb0w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSfLMkfduuCyM2aOeajtq8oY1qEvzcEczn56AcwLq35NKeo68Kqj6gCQazcQRaKJqor2JtSuEF1Wwy03A==
X-Received: by 10.55.40.92 with SMTP id o89mr6489015qkh.36.1454975810872; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 15:56:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.55.14.211 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 15:56:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <56B91905.4020801@tzi.org>
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> <56B91905.4020801@tzi.org>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 15:56:31 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMCCnd=ESSJje08WVQABrbjRK_8ssSGEBZ3S=b_+mDvMfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113c11d45d2b86052b4af401"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/AqOPIJHYVgz1fwcYVHDoJlwxa_8>
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 23:56:55 -0000

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:

> 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.


I think you may have misunderstood Jana's numbers slightly.  The graph he
showed in the Bar BoF did show that QUIC was not used in 7% of the cases,
but that's not the same as saying it was unreachable.

Chrome races TCP and QUIC and if TCP wins, it won't try QUIC again for the
domain for a set interval; it then exponentially backs off with subsequent
attempts.  Note as well that QUIC's handshake packets are a fixed size
(1392 bytes), and always the largest packet in the connection.  So you may
be seeing some race loss, some path MTU issues and some blockage of UDP
that is port specific.  This last can occur when firewalls do not expect
UDP on that port and block it on that port, but permit it on other ports
(e.g. in the range used by RTP).

I've added Jana, in case he should have updated information or corrections.

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.
>
>
It seems a bit premature to say good bye,

regards,

Ted


> Grüße, Carsten
>
>