Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 08 February 2016 11:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir.ietf@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 3165D1AD2D9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 03:58:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, 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 licFwKjvNxdQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 03:58:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com (mail-wm0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (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 911D31AD369 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 03:58:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id g62so112816482wme.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 03:58:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=gM5L1fGvSG01tr/g6I67Gh/AXgxbIrFU8jJpwFdzGFo=; b=t2kaQl1JhuGviTP5wHUAEkoxU9bHu3C0kpWVpCm33xehWHHlwhY3Dk0mQOJ2WWATnD U0axDuZEiL8pvf3SF/gHRnijGVI2fj+vV/hsVQDPqvofXDqE9AWvQLiQhKsk7Xc0/jkd BAv6Y66uqOsxC9eyp+UoiQPw7gRWRNFKsskvi6Cln9yZz6uKSsvXvmslutrtO8Tz8Caq yVDwKjxpCfhuxvDtWiNH+Kx4NCmaji551Y2PnZTRO1R5j0KJvCXEXVtVXEcGRVQK+6Dp vLBIc0q7S0zhY2VMNWdhJYLMoXrJ6ozeMu8mCyojyE9zml0DMPl/JxpbWc8uj4HKTHtR 6Qpw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=gM5L1fGvSG01tr/g6I67Gh/AXgxbIrFU8jJpwFdzGFo=; b=S5UoSjpbq6ePpUEA4Cz3YqAU1H8EHkKwu+fC1+ZuqdzQKjkVIUOblGtJj5c2UKfkfP VFanPmB6odOdQt6Xva1Et2k+MCiXHhWPoN7L4clWpiXgCRo3k+ceiB0Ja40nBdtqQ17L hftDkGH3pOrsTs5b3V3Gv6TkCWb04SYyTAa8bWKo/6ScRzZzgN5jcV1Zpn6uI+hAUksv Etip1PZSWy0+fpolLS4C7lglCngC5+RmdMsaHzHpGGObfHzZ/Sssz/1x9SeC5RF4Bkzi z6Q3QT70idNPFJt0qDdOFvihXwTqAM8aPx+1MQECFEh6sxmz7cEXbFXIxN7zHV3qZdVq ZwRg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQfAXSWdya6qcct7M5hNDKICLXovMm7AL6hYMxdpdyc7/m0y2D0c/paiHphOT2DEA==
X-Received: by 10.28.90.133 with SMTP id o127mr32171408wmb.101.1454932698230; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 03:58:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.24.248.219] (dyn32-131.checkpoint.com. [194.29.32.131]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id di1sm29372652wjc.3.2016.02.08.03.58.16 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Feb 2016 03:58:16 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2957D32A-F139-4600-93BB-DF016CD7A281"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Subject: Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ6w=G4ysJGsNC_F-N5+-P9-OmUYDx1f14mew7GNAEaUmDfYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 13:58:14 +0200
Message-Id: <BC41EFA3-2DE3-44EE-B1B8-A49E15FE52B9@gmail.com>
References: <CAOJ6w=EvzE3dM4Y2mFFR=9YyPBdmFu_jkF4-42LjkdbRd3yz_w@mail.gmail.com> <3FDEA4B7-66FC-46E2-B542-677201B254C8@gmail.com> <CAOJ6w=G4ysJGsNC_F-N5+-P9-OmUYDx1f14mew7GNAEaUmDfYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexey Eromenko <al4321@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/VgLio2w6sXu74H3-qPuIP0vF00w>
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 11:58:21 -0000

IKE

Just as an example

> On 8 Feb 2016, at 1:11 PM, Alexey Eromenko <al4321@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto:ynir.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> > On 7 Feb 2016, at 2:47 PM, Alexey Eromenko <al4321@gmail.com <mailto: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
>