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

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Sun, 03 June 2012 04:34 UTC

Return-Path: <heard@pobox.com>
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 EF48B11E808E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 21:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.413
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 fWl+HwWzL9IN for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 21:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (shell4.bayarea.net [209.128.82.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7767A11E8089 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 21:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 23688 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2012 21:34:16 -0700
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (209.128.82.1) by shell4.bayarea.net with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 2 Jun 2012 21:34:16 -0700
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 21:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-X-Sender: heard@shell4.bayarea.net
To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05.txt> (Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field) to Proposed Standard
In-Reply-To: <4FC9585E.6010205@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1206022127550.17026@shell4.bayarea.net>
References: <20120531143816.30508.66250.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205311957420.31608@shell4.bayarea.net> <4FC9585E.6010205@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 04:34:18 -0000

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Existing routers, which was relying on ID uniqueness of atomic
> packets, are now broken when they fragment the atomic packets.

Such routers were always broken.  An atomic packet has DF=0 and any 
router fragmenting such a packet was and is non-compliant with 
the relevant specifications (RFCs 791, 1122, 1812).

//cmh