IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: TSVART review of draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Mon, 29 August 2016 22:57 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 06699126FDC; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 15:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 Q2PpL-pLWFsL; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 15:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) (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 4192B12B030; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 15:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.189] (cpe-172-250-251-17.socal.res.rr.com [172.250.251.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u7TMuMRd007908 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 29 Aug 2016 15:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: TSVART review of draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <786d5c2c-a88d-7539-9604-6df0b8ed68dd@isi.edu> <0f339ba8-cf63-e961-b19f-895c39585fb7@si6networks.com> <585f4689-d19e-dd54-e75b-4eb3644274ed@isi.edu> <a40199a0-b625-3887-aec6-7e3adfbe504a@si6networks.com> <6755d8bb-3b95-c107-cd72-b799cb2b32f1@isi.edu> <d4615e72-0d19-256c-1830-b2c80dc53d2d@si6networks.com>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <e5949dc8-870a-36fd-8224-0c8cfabd1c8e@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 15:56:22 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d4615e72-0d19-256c-1830-b2c80dc53d2d@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/YU9Q0tXVGtmM-Kn4hROXmGqhSTQ>
Cc: "tsv-art@ietf.org" <tsv-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation@ietf.org, Transport Area <tsv-area@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 29 Aug 2016 22:57:04 -0000


On 8/29/2016 3:51 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Where in the texxt do we say "you shouldn't use fragmentation in general"?

It's the implication that follows from justifying this change based on
whether frag EHs are dropped.

IMO, that's simply irrelevant. The broader problem is using
IPv6-generated IDs, which are not generated to be compliant in their
bottom 16 bits with IPv4.

That alone is more than sufficient rationale for not using this mechanism.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email