Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04

james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> Wed, 15 February 2017 20:40 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@google.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11BD5129B6E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:40:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 QShHv6niIkG1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:40:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x229.google.com (mail-pf0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::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 B50D4129B64 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:40:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x229.google.com with SMTP id c73so30554900pfb.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:40:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=zpsU83HZUABHROuNLA5qxCxvMEac8TxHWj8C1bSZAfI=; b=Tw3EzgMBN+S109+1tBcxsC+d2wUvv/Qe/aOS4oRIwHhZzGAWOPWKAn+Q8rwbQMansi X+6N6f1k6S+59p8M7sS+qXUuoSBApnL9ZhiPNRHB6OPYnJW7N+Qg00nJ87BrmIkj3YNh 7w/Gk7LqA41Hs1kcTk/tsnN+O2DWvbqa09+hb7oFyvoP+ZCl3qIGTKyX30JRkgLdvs7n 635xVu4FJ0HqAjOZBJMIwAcSF/UQjrfqjAkiWTce7L+BVkszt4vPMwqu4CBje8afsmqs 07lKnVm96FnkGO9CTK85mC8r61uca8RF7pxloGxrRxSa2gj15/tiWSuwREs59mGpHd95 yfNw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=zpsU83HZUABHROuNLA5qxCxvMEac8TxHWj8C1bSZAfI=; b=CWlA0yd0q5Ojv65cl/15LnX86xvPTdICYtrp/a78t7E65svPQoRA0/ZWAiCIPYXhA7 7F2YskAbb2Wpia63jhzG58ObaRytjIirSVZwkBvxpXdqjwNefWEV0+iwU6ZyKCoVlgmP 8XpHHQo5q1zVBVV/iAQs+UY0v0Q16N/Y0vGzZiLEweK1hXwAVpBpUnkA9eA1vIPgB/jB 9uxDFNYEq7w+YDD+JHbLpJAceNwSDgRewhujcznZkUR1vfoDr/cosNPk8WpUfOtSN8OD htSEx3/yDwmkfO3MkMjtEo0n3YuiMkMEDoYc3sTwn6vvn7e0j5fUOItaYnoSPfvaE2nP iarw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39m69iKYkC3w9QBPRm+2gBjLxVAV65w/6LpZRx9KVuVVNhfjKo3l9KQwsX0HVypejyat
X-Received: by 10.99.39.70 with SMTP id n67mr40570667pgn.203.1487191234190; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:40:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-100-99-230-134.pao.corp.google.com ([100.99.230.134]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a25sm9209081pgd.26.2017.02.15.12.40.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:40:33 -0800 (PST)
From: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Message-Id: <99AFD44C-06B7-435D-A14C-951680EA2355@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_84E8C621-C295-4C92-ADE5-C75036D27CE0"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:40:32 -0800
In-Reply-To: <cb03ceda3ecb4241ad867302a3195bf4@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <148665359396.20513.9749548375095869760.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <2997d33f-3884-7831-50ed-1713c93b3867@gmail.com> <b9dfd941-0eba-c257-fef4-2f5e6bbd82a8@gmail.com> <078b28a9a26540da9e4caaba4c436cd3@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <440c60d3-0687-c7f1-f8b6-19620e6f618a@gmail.com> <6cb665e0a2244dae93e1b5b91bd9495a@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <fce8c0ef-25b7-9ba7-a5bf-9b5d7f2b19fc@gmail.com> <f4f81574e09e45169438d39afeb83369@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <1fb9a3ad-19e5-0b35-d15a-e74fed88bb8b@gmail.com> <cb03ceda3ecb4241ad867302a3195bf4@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OkjnjZ8VNxgdNeGKtfH1Ggv_iVs>
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis.all@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 20:40:38 -0000

On Feb 14, 2017, at 15:00, Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> 
> Unless there is operational assurance of some size X>1280, however, tunnels have to use fragmentation to guarantee that - at a minimum - packets up to 1280 will get through.

Given the growing prevalence of IPv6 using 6LoWPAN on IEEE 802.15.4, which is always MTU=1280 everywhere, c.f. RFC 4944, I think we can forget about ever getting that operational assurance in practice.


--james woodyatt <jhw@google.com <mailto:jhw@google.com>>