Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Fri, 12 February 2016 04:32 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 93BCF1B3F68 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 20:32:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 v0rRn5IbpMh0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 20:32:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [149.20.64.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7111B1B3F65 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 20:32:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 517363493C4; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 04:32:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41A7716004B; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 04:32:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 308AE16006B; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 04:32:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id sA1FI0KpRe33; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 04:32:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c110-21-49-25.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [110.21.49.25]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E493016004B; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 04:32:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DA5B420839B; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:32:08 +1100 (EST)
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
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> <56BA739D.7060309@isi.edu> <CAMm+Lwij1dOkK0b2ZnJiPMtba=wc823WgYjqw0iwAApa3KBYcg@mail.gmail.com> <56BA95C7.8060109@isi.edu> <56BAD6CC.2030209@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <56BBAAF7.6020903@isi.edu> <56BC9516.6050305@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <56BCCBB4.4050909@isi.edu> <56BCF514.6040401@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <20160212033031.39F25420758B@rock.dv.isc.org> <56BD58DF.9020508@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 12 Feb 2016 13:00:31 +0900." <56BD58DF.9020508@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:32:08 +1100
Message-Id: <20160212043208.7DA5B420839B@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kA0h9824GUDbIuI_i5l7bjW7nKA>
Cc: 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: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 04:32:15 -0000

In message <56BD58DF.9020508@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>jp>, Masataka Ohta writes:
> > Only poor purchasing decisions causing everyone else to have to
> > work around them.
> 
> It is caused primarily by stupid design of IPv6.
> 
> 						Masataka Ohta

Given you see the same stupidity of devices dropping IPv4 fragments
I don't think you can attribute that to IPv6.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org