Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05.txt> (Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field) to Proposed Standard

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Sat, 16 June 2012 17:09 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 9C2E921F852A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Prq708WTACq5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from darkstar.isi.edu (darkstar.isi.edu [128.9.128.127]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4AA621F8525 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.95] (pool-71-105-89-105.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.105.89.105]) (authenticated bits=0) by darkstar.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q5GH9Aa6020254 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:09:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05.txt> (Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field) to Proposed Standard
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4FDC2CCB.70904@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:10:01 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <603619C7-D09E-4779-8C0A-3EC29C7972A9@isi.edu>
References: <20120531143816.30508.66250.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205311957420.31608@shell4.bayarea.net> <4FC9585E.6010205@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <4FC96ACA.9040800@isi.edu> <4FC97E57.6070505@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <4FCEAB53.2020504@isi.edu> <4FDB12F2.6030808@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <4FDB6843.6090107@isi.edu> <4FDBE75A.8090100@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <4FDBEACA.4030701@isi.edu> <4FDC2CCB.70904@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 17:09:33 -0000

On Jun 15, 2012, at 11:50 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:

> Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>> Again, this document doesn't change the current situation. Operators who
>> clear the DF bit are not innocent - they need to override a default
>> setting. They are active participants. They ARE guilty of violating
>> existing standards.
> 
> While IETF is not a protocol police and clearing DF is not
> considered guilty by operators community, the following
> draft:
> 
> 	draft-generic-v6ops-tunmtu-03.txt
> 
> to fragment IPv6 packets by intermediate routers should be
> very interesting to you.

It is aware of our IPv4-ID doc, and consistent with it.

When the DF is "ignored", the ID field is rewritten - i.e., turning the packet from atomic to compliant non-atomic within the tunnel. This is consistent with the notion that the ID field must be unique, and that atomic packets need not have unique IDs. The rewriting is hidden - happens only inside the tunnel, is controlled uniquely by the source, and does not need coordination by other sources.

Joe