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

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Mon, 18 June 2012 12:10 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 1078A21F85CD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 05:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.059
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.059 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 12AmD9YBAswf for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 05:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B2AFA21F85C9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 05:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 15476 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2012 12:15:43 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 18 Jun 2012 12:15:43 -0000
Message-ID: <4FDF1A93.2060304@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 21:09:55 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05.txt> (Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field) to Proposed Standard
References: <20120531143816.30508.66250.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205311957420.31608@shell4.bayarea.net> <4FC9585E.6010205@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <4FC96ACA.9040800@isi.edu> <4FC97E57.6070505@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <4FCEAB53.2020504@isi.edu> <4FDB12F2.6030808@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <4FDB6843.6090107@isi.edu> <4FDBE75A.8090100@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <4FDBEACA.4030701@isi.edu> <4FDC2CCB.70904@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <603619C7-D09E-4779-8C0A-3EC29C7972A9@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <603619C7-D09E-4779-8C0A-3EC29C7972A9@isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 18 Jun 2012 12:10:24 -0000

Joe Touch wrote:

>> 	draft-generic-v6ops-tunmtu-03.txt
>>
>> to fragment IPv6 packets by intermediate routers should be
>> very interesting to you.
> 
> It is aware of our IPv4-ID doc, and consistent with it.

What?

> When the DF is "ignored", the ID field is rewritten - i.e.,

If the ID field could be rewritten by intermediate entities,
it is fine for intermediate routers to clear DF.

> The
> rewriting is hidden - happens only inside the tunnel, is
> controlled uniquely by the source, and does not need coordination
> by other sources.

The tunnels are often controlled uniquely only by the destinations.

						Masataka Ohta