Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05.txt> (Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field) to Proposed Standard

Joe Touch <> Wed, 06 June 2012 00:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C354C11E80AE for <>; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:55:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.688
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.688 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.089, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l8JE4lTD87u4 for <>; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9373D11E80AB for <>; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q560t7rl000553 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:55:07 -0700
From: Joe Touch <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Masataka Ohta <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05.txt> (Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field) to Proposed Standard
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 00:55:22 -0000


On 6/3/2012 12:12 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> C. M. Heard wrote:
>>> Existing routers, which was relying on ID uniqueness of atomic
>>> packets, are now broken when they fragment the atomic packets.
>> Such routers were always broken.  An atomic packet has DF=0 and any
>> router fragmenting such a packet was and is non-compliant with
>> the relevant specifications (RFCs 791, 1122, 1812).
> Thank you. I have overlooked that atomic implied DF=1.
> But, then,
>     >>  Sources emitting non-atomic datagrams MUST NOT repeat IPv4 ID
>     values within one MSL for a given source address/destination
>     address/protocol triple.
> makes most, if not all, IPv4 hosts non compliant if MSL=2min.

This is already noted throughout this document, however there is little
impact to such non-compliance if datagrams don't persist that long.

> Worse, without hard value of MSL, it is a meaningless
> requirement. Note that MSL=2min derived from RFC793 breaks
> 150Mbps TCP.

It breaks at 6.4 Mbps for 1500 byte packets, as is already noted in the doc.

> The proper solution, IMHO, to the ID uniqueness is to request
> a destination host drop fragments from a source host after
> it receives tens (or hundreds) of packets with different IDs
> from the same source host.

That doesn't help ID uniqueness; it helps avoid fragmentation overload.
FWIW, such issues were discussed at length in the INTAREA WG when this
doc was developed.

> A source host, then, is only required to remember the
> previous ID used for each destination.

They don't do anywhere near that right now, but even if they did it
would still be prohibitive in speed (as per above).