IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Sat, 16 June 2012 06:51 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 ECB0421F8522 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 23:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
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 mP2aLKA4UWZH for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 23:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 15A5A21F851C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 23:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 90586 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2012 06:56:37 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 16 Jun 2012 06:56:37 -0000
Message-ID: <4FDC2CCB.70904@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 15:50:51 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05.txt> (Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field) to Proposed Standard
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>
In-Reply-To: <4FDBEACA.4030701@isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 06:51:55 -0000

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.

						Masataka Ohta

v2.20.1 | Report a Bug | By Email