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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Masataka,

On 6/15/2012 3:48 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> After thinking more about the draft, I think it is
> purposelessly hostile against innocent operators and
> end users who are suffering between people filtering
> ICMP and people insisting on PMTUD.
> 
> Today, innocent operators often clear DF bit and
> end users are happy with it, because, today, probability
> of accidental ID match is small enough.

That is not an innocent action. It defeats PMTUD, which is a draft
standard. It also violates RFC 791 and 1121.

> However, as the ID specifies:
> 
>     >>  Originating sources MAY set the IPv4 ID field of atomic datagrams
>     to any value.
> 
>     >>  IPv4 datagram transit devices MUST NOT clear the DF bit.
> 
> people insisting on PMTUD are now authorized to set ID always
> zero, trying to discourage ICMP filtering and DF bit clearing.
> 
> But, as people filtering ICMP won't stop doing so and if
> operators can do nothing other than clearing DF, it is
> end users who suffers.

This document only restates existing requirements in this regard,
stating them in 2119-language. It does not create any new requirement.
Operates that clear the DF bit are already in violation of three
standards-track RFCs.

> Then, end users may actively act against PMTUD and/or IETF.

I disagree; if they wanted to do so, they already would have acted since
the requirements already exist, albeit in pre-RFC2199 language.

Joe

> 
> 					Masataka Ohta