IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 09 February 2016 05:01 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir.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 317981A049A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 21:01:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 SRBu4Zjf9Mft for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 21:01:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22b.google.com (mail-wm0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22b]) (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 7CF331A064C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 21:01:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id c200so43958099wme.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 21:01:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ekIJdjVrdK+ESdpYKzdtd59SuOqg1Pm0WFg09TqFrk8=; b=hSY0cPjsKyTLIsdXaXGiJireyhzNgFAMu8/q7TDJySni7ajn+RqQvifuCWv9Sc6Lpn vP8+t+KmlDGZwq/phFjUrAbqRO6tof+M6VGlLIQSpCUawS+7SCBZBYJ/olTZ050kHUvt 6gkLCBZQbKhpm9ho+Rr9hePF3Vblm4cy+SbQASfYQEjaOrP7EAIXkDX+xWLqQ5qwVoBM YP/DP8NruIpXDMXeqEnh06s0l/RrH1J2T04F8LxtFdHiMdIEu4bxy5TdmWZgbHvDdmRP bRzPPpdz23UZIcnSKj6yHfWgyP1mRiFg1iz9sH+ChXyFAvWpji2BZeHCaWA1CNzXL2SR AH4w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=ekIJdjVrdK+ESdpYKzdtd59SuOqg1Pm0WFg09TqFrk8=; b=gn67AOEuBLcdTw9h+pnwBCOh4a56ludw4Ufqs4dZDJQBn7LgA4LZ1WS1JKPDLtBO2z JppPG8DYYkMQI7pBlDHdclpmAdIAe9Xl1HBJdeZrJUoz5E+XX5KYfzb4t9M1YQns5d3S Agw4WPNhGmoNYkFGnFwyN/8fMbaotMeLl95Navg4Ng1YlJH0IxsZyujJiOJd3NQZUSXu miop74xIlYZ0JjAw46xokWxPnksiXhc3c0qGtEE+Lp8IH+ZXtT5m+s3VBzILhf4Flivf zFNA20zD71OLbJWLTRshyNblmDplB6pF192FXyeEsqHwa9xLaZmK1/IbHo/9BIyespat r13A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTM1upbsncZEf6UQA3Kvdb5Xza0FNVrjfX0t99FQX9Rq/qbJ/jpfPWT9Gfk1ZA19Q==
X-Received: by 10.28.228.213 with SMTP id b204mr2433391wmh.82.1454994080062; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 21:01:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.13] ([46.120.13.132]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e19sm12598177wmd.1.2016.02.08.21.01.18 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Feb 2016 21:01:18 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Subject: Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwgkpQnBm37Hq9qpffQKVgO9fyRv54pG6UM-gj8qFd_-Ow@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 07:01:16 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1DF99465-D422-4040-A2F2-385063DDF4BB@gmail.com>
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> <CAMm+LwgkpQnBm37Hq9qpffQKVgO9fyRv54pG6UM-gj8qFd_-Ow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/LrG-gu_9h9DHHXqHucy0RXHTRVw>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, 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: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 05:01:23 -0000

> On 9 Feb 2016, at 1:20 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 5:39 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.  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.
> 
> Maybe what we needed all along was a better TCP that allowed data to
> be sent on the first packet.

And could be stateless on the server

And you could get the same size data as the other side sent you without adding your own message layer.

Yoav

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email