IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 10 February 2016 00:21 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 8E5711B2A72 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 16:21:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Qeg-4pSi9IBx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 16:21:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E11E11B32BB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 16:21:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (unknown [186.56.150.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 099F1206B65; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 01:21:27 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
References: <CAOJ6w=EvzE3dM4Y2mFFR=9YyPBdmFu_jkF4-42LjkdbRd3yz_w@mail.gmail.com> <BLUPR05MB1985F5F2BB3118362C67B921AED50@BLUPR05MB1985.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <20160208200943.A615941B5B96@rock.dv.isc.org> <CAMm+LwgLoYpQ1TNOTOuJzh+cu+GyRBf9=y_K7K35boQ9WcZKjA@mail.gmail.com> <56B92A96.9050200@si6networks.com> <CAMm+LwifTXvVd1mPZOfcOOR03Fnj-82H9aDVS01=wGezePtnXw@mail.gmail.com> <56BA4BC7.1010002@isi.edu> <CAMm+Lwi-n=be4AWGibs+Zq9egYw5pSDmPGb-4P0LDEcX1E6osA@mail.gmail.com> <56BA68CE.7090304@isi.edu> <CAMm+LwiM2sFUeejgJZe650UQbVHrh7EHrEF2omvPrZJPodgJLA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <56BA8131.8030501@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 21:15:45 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwiM2sFUeejgJZe650UQbVHrh7EHrEF2omvPrZJPodgJLA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_UY93xFYHJQWgCmEUNBs3cFMb4o>
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: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 00:21:35 -0000

On 02/09/2016 08:09 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/9/2016 12:47 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/8/2016 4:47 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Problem is that most of us have ethernet hubs rather than true IP
>>>>> switches. If we had real IP everywhere we could deprecate MAC
>>>>> addresses.
>>>>
>>>> Except that we derive self-assigned IPv6 addresses from MAC addresses.
>>>
>>> If we didn't need them to be MAC addresses we could go to EUI-64 and
>>> have 16 shiny new bits to play with.
>>
>> *You* wouldn't get to play with them; MAC vendors would. How would that
>> help, given they're already intended to be unique?
> 
> I don't want a unique identifier associated with my machine going on the wire.

Use RFC7217. Linux is in the process of defaulting to it.

Thanks,


> I was one of the first people arguing that WiFi devices should declare
> a random MAC address. The idea of putting permanent linkable
> information on the wire is an abomination.

+1 -- nice to hear that!  (and that's even worse when you do that in a
layer-3 address).

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email