IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Tue, 09 February 2016 01:18 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@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 9B5E01B3EE8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 17:18:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 DmDGX3AoOGEr for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 17:18:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x234.google.com (mail-lf0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::234]) (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 303211B3EF3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 17:18:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x234.google.com with SMTP id 78so106629627lfy.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 17:18:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=yDd9I6efzpicWE4Koer4iNRmtZc3XsKoNN3tW9xxTls=; b=CWZcXYEIev+ETzfjrlZDknhuACVRbdOE5VbZBAJ4SM9krjpr65vXqdKz0lmnkFhDKf SJ7sJaQ0Jz2J7pldR8G39D2z90wiywdFrB1ZH6jpuPiFQP9Lv6GxrbeXZ+CPv4pgZnBu ndQLzBa+rE7BnBnHEmzO/l2xPxMDoo2BtGI+DD1UavNMGUcwdU82Y4T6ph5zynJRScau oC/++jMFPkBwd3nwiBkFjFIeqgc+9o/GURE1djByValorvyYyqr+9EGUwpZIhWZKcXSP plczn/IXWy4B+WxXiSumQFpI19tNceCDSdoomtdFYbt2aLICpm8l1MfAjOkeSU74Te2o +1RQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=yDd9I6efzpicWE4Koer4iNRmtZc3XsKoNN3tW9xxTls=; b=Ri7IPIrOH+R0MMjgenG/qg2CIZM/s2xOQ6/lk1LotonnFkm00UGpDdiWohCLSx0QEV MaagJK0pknd+I2N7dHB0gw9stXajj4BXX35Qc4CQB61/Do4S4H0ttcBHm0ZfmtvWRmzZ iM5YlC/OGbCgj7iUVyC5N764z2Ftgz7xPTbsfMfTTjUHsIOsv0A3VCpXtKEBf+o6UhC+ ncQa4+ifngK+OMFBdkqeBFsRLv1mMwk7ahOVoAb0LnDL52XhyDh7hPs9uXg4jg7hYA2I nUPKOhBwiqg6DDKRgZgIf18zUlty682XyTVP4nP65GAGEjPYvHeqhwH+pcQohvPtYTZD wRGA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQwJeR8PzqkxKOEECMj46EIw0se9Ccb+h7/nU8oN98OhlKujG3/gKFGDUBd99I8DbdgK1sQJ44GWERWWw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.25.163.76 with SMTP id m73mr10411718lfe.39.1454980710524; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 17:18:30 -0800 (PST)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.49.80 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 17:18:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <56B93A8B.4020407@si6networks.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> <56B92D74.7020903@si6networks.com> <CAHw9_iJ9pLbPgNT+rjmRDYxP9LnMAyUMQCE0f5=LaMVVxKqPVw@mail.gmail.com> <56B93A8B.4020407@si6networks.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 20:18:30 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: gWcue21l6PpkNvzTVBtxt2k6Too
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwhO2-+hXg_5hHCdxysseBCdFFqyS_Ou5dqVsdjOYbRXLw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RZuJSvf1mwvM4fm1IZtSLwh6Eag>
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 01:18:33 -0000

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
> On 02/08/2016 09:08 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:

>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7413 for those who are wondering.
>
> Even pre-fast open TCP already allowed this -- however, those data can
> only be *consumed* once the 3WHS is complete...

Yep, as an apps guy, I don't really care about theoretical
capabilities of the protocols that aren't exposed by the available
network stack APIs.

The job isn't done until you have persuaded the platform people to
give access to the capabilities. Hence we end up locked in UDP-ville.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email