IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Tue, 09 February 2016 13:14 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 559671A8AC9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 05:14:26 -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 J3-ywT1HI_zJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 05:14:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x236.google.com (mail-lb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::236]) (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 223E51A8AC1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 05:14:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-x236.google.com with SMTP id dx2so100182145lbd.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 05:14:21 -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=bULn7czMBMz8YDPgvQjMuqJCw6tlraVRf8txpUsnuQ8=; b=uS2k0V+yPF6yflwQlm9tZwwJFoEkmOBBK1uLnrW7+ard2V0h7uzxrX7vhxd685KRSj j+gVi45kTqPS6c+l10WrHaso7wwrCqrORpniaTGBTL7AN/PRA2E5EzbkWHgJuUi09B5k mj1IqzQ1rjuYi5kp70FYm5wRD8hER338cCfaavRBiVCtYtoda3Dze4QbCJB87r0mE2Tk 1Fm6VPc/qT+yJQmbaxotQ7wDzvtAPcoj3GsVXy8et3SN6P5U+HCzlrrmDm7A58F9S3IR MotzvmWq6U+fL7/fofBPXd8TMoQRwZcUwMF/3Z0eleUUDeHVr1q07XZETcDGfAOl50QO ECsg==
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=bULn7czMBMz8YDPgvQjMuqJCw6tlraVRf8txpUsnuQ8=; b=Z8S7XnBxWw+rsaQFCIkLiznuqmsSeaM1AQ4996j0lVSErWpSxbqF0JyCMu0XSfGaQ7 suFIWGpeIGlfqExBdjr2vTDavQ8dY4zUbTJI8iL/GVmh/3Ty+J38wpnPMi2P4bKa747v ju8obvyEXAawo5j71LG2EqDran7C+OoKKNZnWghVDSeq2AK7wluW+sKstmfCUC9fLAl9 w8BWJUeLVRe3CKxqTgi+LX2v8dBWCs4476s55Id8DdvPPBwAc2wCFOa7VfmxsFn5W0eP 3zisrlCp48cE0SgwxQ7/Z+lgsN2Z1NLxFXRKIOS19hpox0+/ZOHlR35iCJt5Bk1i+WaE Vwbg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQO2jJMB1LikaiCXWwzkh3DSeWMNcEpwKx3IdHPx1VNoaw33hv1seb318ssozJgQkYoVejkYFrSem0oUg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.140.1 with SMTP id rc1mr13642344lbb.112.1455023659362; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 05:14:19 -0800 (PST)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.49.80 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 05:14:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1602091204430.21662@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
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> <CAMm+LwgkpQnBm37Hq9qpffQKVgO9fyRv54pG6UM-gj8qFd_-Ow@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1602091204430.21662@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 08:14:19 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: rwpGIZqqi0XjKrwX8WcZpjnaKrY
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwjnYHRuriAnLYc-2UkSygbxzJe+JK_=XQDzvY-bERjsuw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/glpNcrhUjPZ26c40CdJsNZIF3ho>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, 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: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 13:14:26 -0000

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:
> Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/tcp-impl/list/archive/1292.html
>
> But I thought TCP fast open https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7413
> fixed the design errors in T/TCP, so is it still considered a bad idea?

Perhaps it does. But as I said, it only counts as solved when it is in
the stacks I can use. And no, Linux doesn't count.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email