IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Mon, 08 February 2016 21:27 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 2B9C11B2DB6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 13:27:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.678
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.678 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, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, 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 CyKdBAVcTz9E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 13:27:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x229.google.com (mail-lf0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::229]) (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 E2EB91B2C8B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 13:27:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x229.google.com with SMTP id l143so104065045lfe.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 13:27:40 -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=TmcXwWO6Rxk8AWd7G/izY+9r9AFaUQLII9REFAtNAr8=; b=K9YvATq6NTHGV/KEZJ0q/DbF71RPdfAJV/IBEDzCbvO/H/0tfpdsiL0FdyRJszx2HU +23vcZBdcREDRQTbh6Nkr36JuzO6zkHb882y55OgDpc6quBxloSbw6U3EABhLz9cQ3rU IOUSIFWjTXNSEGQ+BZZZCpA9MuhVXnQnL4JmTB56/ZM2z8ZOz/YwD6O1pIDWdjffUPqD 1z18aAq8vl8PnLjmqLuLmqjrZPwUygLjz1GJhZX8dXVjWURgZ8bEYnWeE1S8ZpKwtDQr 9l+Ed5SBlyBt4Pi2l4XazSVR8dEioBVXMo+fVOyjDgXeHx0V3HvQ9qtAyw1QlJRnHXU1 6cCw==
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=TmcXwWO6Rxk8AWd7G/izY+9r9AFaUQLII9REFAtNAr8=; b=Nh3ykr+BuBLZDXnOIuTiUuoyD3Cx/iJLE12ILE4JSq9hGX+xFnjPfCkKVAR2SrsSJG cRz9o82b/hR73hpA0Qy3L1GtZYfFdj3b+56EDewRB0vhFmbGPHht7702MJDzwpQmQrF6 Va+REbJyUKiehUUYm947QgOy9obAHEM9mjhzgoCS8hevpDJkA2L2aMoZy5UTpnZTRGfs fU+djQNEMj3QZSBndESb9OiaHBsRn/rkmouEM3E16N3hjtM+I1vsIgXqyIuqpN4VXZ4k 85PVoSXRlTwyq1/YYUShFTiMtBi0RtRCJciIXa1QdriJr30gs+xG1APZk8HG+on31hYo 6a+A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTmzP2YOuIcf9wKazd2MS7GBw+lzlKToKKgqUDC8DlPl7DgNti1GwxxzWNyA0EDHwW4GAwh8g6279u9QQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.25.170.203 with SMTP id t194mr10014858lfe.48.1454966859250; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 13:27:39 -0800 (PST)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.49.80 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 13:27:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <56B90733.5030002@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> <56B90733.5030002@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 16:27:39 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: z-ONl5vrDJYyUXARujtqfU3Tv9A
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwhb2rbS6BMr7JGp4=258QUiU+7aTuLNL5i=qgXhOMThCw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/l68Z453XqH03tIIECdUcEAaDayo>
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: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 21:27:42 -0000

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/8/2016 12:44 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> Seems to me that we might be misreading the original proposal. There
>> are two ways to read it:
>>
>> 1) In future all Internet routing gear MUST NOT fragment IP packets.
>
> IPv6 is that future, FWIW.

Hopefully yes.

But is it written down anywhere that IPv6 routers MUST accept packets
up to the full IP payload? The conversation in this thread suggests
not.


One of the tricks the WiFi folk use to keep people upgrading is to add
a little suffix to the protocol. So folk started to look for
802.11a/c/n/an.

As a marketing matter, an IPv6f profile (f for FAST) might help grease
the skids a bit.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email