IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Wed, 10 February 2016 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 AD3A11B3001 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:26:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 nUnWSGJeZrA3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:26:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D9C11B3000 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:26:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.9.184.104] ([128.9.184.104]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u1ALQHGD016380 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>, ietf@ietf.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>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <56BBAAF7.6020903@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:26:15 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56BAD6CC.2030209@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ogMxxt2UOKwzft3g0GPm_vLDUO4>
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 21:26:25 -0000


On 2/9/2016 10:21 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>>> Tunneling, encapsulation, VPNs, IP-in-IP are all network activities.
>> > 
>> > Tunneling is an end system activity.
>> > 
>> > Nodes that encap or decap are acting as sources or sinks, not relays.
> A problem is that relays (firewalls) are involved in decap.

The only problem there is believing that a device is defined by its
product literature, rather than its behavior.

I repeat: nodes that encap or decap are acting as sources or sinks, not
relays.

Nodes such as NATs and firewalls act as end hosts on the public side and
routers on the private side. Which is why they need to obey RFC1122
semantics on the public side. What happens on the private side that
drives the public side behavior is irrelevant.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email