IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Mon, 08 February 2016 21:38 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 756A71A9241 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 13:38:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 9ZmRsZHo96QJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 13:38:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1E6B1A9252 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 13:38:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.9.184.104] ([128.9.184.104]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u18Lc6lZ023832 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 8 Feb 2016 13:38:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Is Fragmentation at IP layer even needed ?
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
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>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <56B90ABD.7040702@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 13:38:05 -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: <CAMm+Lwhb2rbS6BMr7JGp4=258QUiU+7aTuLNL5i=qgXhOMThCw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MailScanner-ID: u18Lc6lZ023832
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/zhn3lUt1j1BZ7yVzexyR_7fNEbM>
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 21:38:34 -0000


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.

> One of the tricks the WiFi folk use to keep people upgrading is to add
> a little suffix to the protocol. So folk started to look for
> 802.11a/c/n/an.
> 
> As a marketing matter, an IPv6f profile (f for FAST) might help grease
> the skids a bit.

If "f" = flawed, sure.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email