IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Mon, 08 February 2016 23:20 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 8EF7B1B3C84 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 15:20:20 -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 XnE3a1wX6-cU for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 15:20:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x235.google.com (mail-lb0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::235]) (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 065C91B3C56 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 15:20:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-x235.google.com with SMTP id cw1so91592920lbb.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 15:20:18 -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=/N+RZb1zlnfhogYhk8oFoTMsGNTsvvofZ7ieSnSCkKc=; b=nQCVvL2m9CtnKLtn/dOEYfLTdkER7Bh37lJOkP6NTHQoUqwNgr/mHa9s1TCSVUqjSd nKcSODF08vaSG5mvXR3+apvMNt9IqmEFuxBiv9fqv1JCskOb1/Gj/dDhIjbg1a5yZ8Ut 7J7OfNw+8wNrHyNqulqg2GxZKzlt2HnTeDeYzeQh0LgBpOsMGOexPM1v+jT+c/0BXKEB taPRzkAyCMgIL53ZrT/UDjgZDVQkmP6Vzqf7jRU01q7GCJpWZ22tzaN503y4j2283pFY BFHQHvnHh2lZEkYby+u2Tas96ug4K7i5cgI6icrmACUuy30rKB52lWJjlsw46Gg+gPfj 6z1A==
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=/N+RZb1zlnfhogYhk8oFoTMsGNTsvvofZ7ieSnSCkKc=; b=dx8vc7hQmdp0uuV9FOE1xoKNWKA8XvoUtrJHQzJiup6HdBQ06l3JN2z18Q0X0J7l17 mX8DUkuIAGDk2/yYOic8xFsucy7lAtdLgUeluBEOn6PUK868dXALvhEwFUdcH0PjpCMM 51tqXUKUePQSYx/8kjoN51gXCv1a/TNKBorivT40595Ljv1ojVjn6QTlOVO+z+L1PK0/ 0cGcNyHYsagSGSybYIQzZjtyzFZrZK3DdzXPPcV0N3cHx61yTTxmuTbfNifPVtJB2S+R x2nNK42yNKKMr4MMnZXp5pDtyMbZPFDWX4QQEDt4lk3TCbTvFcbmeQKmjl8WbKlHGLBc v5dQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOR3jq6nMLzSzEW/89kxRk/ts49JFBFxwOiycS7DF4J5huIfuO7hKZr+WbPJPwz2HUtbSPKlHHC1/XpZiA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.159.10 with SMTP id wy10mr2089024lbb.114.1454973617063; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 15:20:17 -0800 (PST)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.49.80 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 15:20:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <56B91905.4020801@tzi.org>
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>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 18:20:15 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: MYfrI_0nvaQGqIdNd_Cp0Cy8Djo
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwgkpQnBm37Hq9qpffQKVgO9fyRv54pG6UM-gj8qFd_-Ow@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/YEgmp8wg92gZVUQUj4fM4V3gZRw>
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 23:20:20 -0000

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> Ronald Bonica wrote:
>> The words "many" and "some" don't do justice to the conversation.  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world-02 provides more concrete numbers from real-world observation.
>
> Ah, but the result is much simpler.
>
> Some other real world data (Google QUIC experiments) already tell us
> that a sizable part of the Internet (was it 7 %?) is not reachable via
> UDP at all.  This just ups that number slightly for IPv6 and UDP
> protocols that don't have their own segmentation.
>
> UDP, it was nice to have known you.

Maybe what we needed all along was a better TCP that allowed data to
be sent on the first packet.

That is what people keep seeming to re-invent.

Another of those cases where people keep telling me that there are
good reasons not to do that but don't ever get round to explaining
what they are. Not a form of argument that I find convincing. Having
conceded the point that data can be sent via UDP, the idea of
combining a UDP packet with a TCP open request seems fairly obvious.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email