Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?

Alexey Eromenko <al4321@gmail.com> Mon, 08 February 2016 11:11 UTC

Return-Path: <al4321@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 142531ACEF1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 03:11:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 mqsdxktwCerr for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 03:11:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x236.google.com (mail-io0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::236]) (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 C3B3B1ACEE4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 03:11:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x236.google.com with SMTP id g73so191188230ioe.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 03:11:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=eB4Uc8pUA7uGJIbRtRKdJVIcmmlSDPMD1UY54WezViQ=; b=ohGPYuhY8hCuKwPgbWHmlgjGmIqN8qpKtr3d/F/AqmxF9S1GwkEVrqy6mfd3rHTYKb 7Pu1t4GE4tHBgREmLcJQobJhlDOvljz3dZ52JYDJY7R+nPnv/oSuVY1pb7hiHlYnjW+H ohl0Vn2TLeS7X+8/zRZXGABT7GaRfcfLkMfEdEnVzhqszflXULW+NgfPK6vGfhHJc9f2 XjIiufUf5UmBl4ld2H+9y+8R8rd6cEsxRX3eupNzvM019PTvroaSanTL6hjvYMXUo5ns /czzxFnrwjFn+Iu+J/l5dP6B24+DSWM/3AZGbh4Bh2FtXCbj8bLcc365NFCMbGTukTF3 IELA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=eB4Uc8pUA7uGJIbRtRKdJVIcmmlSDPMD1UY54WezViQ=; b=aJVRCId9p7lTHgEQx7q6ISvsaHwcrqlsn1tYDKC5QJNJ2vmX6LK9G9ms8P4Mr1ALjF 343yLNh4pOHi9ToMfw68gYpayejri0bLJvxyULxoVscRtIHSbXpmywTZ1GyHKPUbvK/i 4Nn13y7uXjNbaxRwA/ymd+ezQWIKwNMYrHAfgLF6gq5h04ALv5LjfmWJtn0l9n1oJX5h lO15r5TVXP0MqL8rpRPK481WJZZWGEqOWbc57ULdTMKnsdqF08vos/vDWqLFsNRNsrAy 1QYzBnzKz2i652ISok82X7Hf5PUw6+p4+iaG7lAhg2Bss+8O7vjRa0z06KxbBrAXCoOa k14w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSpfn5XXzHFJTKrjZeDbxrPyCae/JvUbZtYpaycUdWyFHEmOQR3UhNssDOmMJxqEtFi9MsBdYzWXcDhCw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.15.29 with SMTP id x29mr27070551ioi.164.1454929906168; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 03:11:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.107.136.144 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 03:11:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.107.136.144 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 03:11:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <3FDEA4B7-66FC-46E2-B542-677201B254C8@gmail.com>
References: <CAOJ6w=EvzE3dM4Y2mFFR=9YyPBdmFu_jkF4-42LjkdbRd3yz_w@mail.gmail.com> <3FDEA4B7-66FC-46E2-B542-677201B254C8@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 13:11:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOJ6w=G4ysJGsNC_F-N5+-P9-OmUYDx1f14mew7GNAEaUmDfYg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?
From: Alexey Eromenko <al4321@gmail.com>
To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ee9b63afbae052b40441c"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/U705bJgFaGnZ7zuzxeAec2Rum50>
Cc: 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: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 11:11:48 -0000

1. IP v6 fragmentation is limited from 1280 bytes up to 1500 bytes. Any
higher than that is optional to implement,  and may not work.
2. What kind of UDP applications use such big packets, over 1280 bytes ?
On Feb 7, 2016 5:07 PM, "Yoav Nir" <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On 7 Feb 2016, at 2:47 PM, Alexey Eromenko <al4321@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I'm re-evaluating TCP/IP stack again with my ongoing IP-FF research.
> >
> > My question: Is packet fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?
>
> Short answer: yes.
>
> >
> > Basically here are few possibilities:
> >
> > 1. Fragmentation-and-reassembly at every hop. (I don't know if anybody
> implements it)
>
> This is the Internet. Nobody controls every hop. There can be devices who
> do this, but it does not force other devices on the path to do this. This
> would be slower than passing the fragments as they are, so routers
> typically don’t do this unless they’re modifying the packet. Our VPN
> gateway may or may not re-assemble and re-fragment when doing IPsec for
> IPv4, depending on configuration.
>
> > 2. IPv4 style-fragmentation -- fragmentation per every hop, reassembly
> at destination end.
>
> Definitely implemented widely.
>
> > 3. IPv6-style-fragmentation -- fragmentation only at source end,
> reassembly at destination end.
>
> Definitely implemented by everyone who wants to be compliant with IPv6.
>
> > 4. No fragmentation at all (the advantage here: faster Router processing
> vs #1 or #2 and less implementation bugs); Assuming standard packet size is
> defined at 1280 bytes, like in IPv6
> > 5. MTU path discovery via ICMP -- RFC-1981
> > 6. MTU path discovery via TCP (or other Transport) -- RFC-4821 (or other
> way)
>
> And what if you’re using anything other than TCP/SCTP?  If your
> application is UDP and it is sending a 3000-byte payload you have to do the
> fragmentation at some layer.
>
> >
> > I'm leaning towards 4 + 6 solution in my own protocol, IP-FF.
> > What do you think ?
> > Should IP layer provide fragmentation ?
>
> Some layer must, and assuming backwards compatibility with existing
> transport and higher layers is required, I don’t see how an IP layer
> without fragmentation would work.
>
> Yoav
>
>