IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Mon, 08 February 2016 21:59 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 9B7731B31ED for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 13:59:04 -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 QAaPRfHcG2am for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 13:59:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x235.google.com (mail-lb0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::235]) (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 29BE61B33C0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 13:59:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-x235.google.com with SMTP id x4so92055891lbm.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 13:59:03 -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=zc3gMVMxnCW6bRA76/VLo1EptP+yfDodSIYlI/lo6O0=; b=jiQNLGdxpS5vuR5Zj65PhBy8tN4YTCo+PP8pCvqrU79e/eoDLMxqhfLeIwG7S6d3UN gKHkCYJ0ipo02y9OnRLOh0NEBB43N4zCZUHkePl7vlUqJkBVRN1GIbouS0pp1OGvkqrR UwkMsZAOrNQOgwzfVlaJRFA6TpXGrjxh8LiNZ/r9wk/iuM0CWfINELi2OMFL8Txj3/Gr TdJF3XCAqGcGNuZCGdoZZNKScvno7E2JrUHgmnWTC1ZH0aidGaEChMpLYR6upjLbGBMu gsbqrExVfgXyLpS7BnUyJVdYtkzm4rDzZKej8Xp/XOqdfa8/0sqhF+VLY/ATJyEU/WpR yChA==
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=zc3gMVMxnCW6bRA76/VLo1EptP+yfDodSIYlI/lo6O0=; b=hLMFVBLEEgZyPBOmWYHzW4itIPj7wS4G45hlOSYCI5Hrmo75M80ZXAotYd4neBwenu hLtV5q7dJShfz1oicVIWbQtNhznZQrKlxJRP+/8xNYAc2NV4zLMujdlyiztbM/1Iu1Lq Lq17Jhhj1i7Th4T+K0mhFZqghldmyQAjfNYC2fAN0f74oRqEmNqmj3N2RLYxxfd8VF5T aZEuYnXHdrvu3+LpelvNx0gpuq03qEOUF+m3IRm1qYYU6jZC0ObZ377SYpVBnxqLwcsK 6jFsnapzcWAMulJlsGkFDeh/GyEELAXAa5CO+zxqYopcCfMiYEYG4LhlyhGcawAzRvuX VvBw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOT1S3sHQ4B1Ar5ycJsA0QQ371wZZX57czgjtnJXpkdTmVivQ7hd9FEMhYW5wbWcZB5IXPBkUc+9I7k4KQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.64.5 with SMTP id k5mr12263796lbs.133.1454968741367; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 13:59:01 -0800 (PST)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.49.80 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 13:59:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <56B90ABD.7040702@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> <CAMm+Lwhb2rbS6BMr7JGp4=258QUiU+7aTuLNL5i=qgXhOMThCw@mail.gmail.com> <56B90ABD.7040702@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 16:59:01 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: DXSoAPeR9TLB68x2EcGCZpM5jZw
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwirC-7sHyZTyOVqeuQeQcmOJfL3xRBHiFHqrDvFvk8+Bg@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/to7mnqBiTE9M5mGFe5fhl7s61EA>
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 21:59:04 -0000

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/8/2016 1:27 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> 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.
>
> RFC2460 specifies both relaying and source/sink requirements.

So the shorter answer to the original question would be that
fragmentation is already deprecated.

Since IPv4 infrastructure is still with us, we are nowhere close to
removing legacy support for fragmentation.


There is however still no simple way to know if the level of routing
gear I buy for the house (cheaper office type) is well behaved or not.
Problem is that we tend to leave that to IEEE. Which made sense in the
days when non-IP ethernet was still an issue.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email