IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Thu, 02 August 2018 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E02FB130E78; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 07:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.99
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.99 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
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 Cm3i0P_bFe9W; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 07:38:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B15B130E77; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 07:38:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=dBk2Q9MEaK0EyCnZjRX5uMpEixFHrnXqepil4/MfUZM=; b=CoNTaBCR9gA4KvDCafQxVfX0c zYuA/BUG5zk34cJgCHt7xTNa1vvs6z311PWYm1Oc+/UsgV/ueBosXJk6PoMj2z3x35hiX03ZrNG52 zBPRsQayqjoXIJ6b0q+xc2modVe0ymgBG7M/cNwTB2TtuV24obyrDRYr6pqTmrOLXeo0lso49WRzW pxqLG0CDnDufUfLnGh7RCdMmucFEBBok7S80B5lGCBFGjV5DMD2MCOSmcGhET17xjLFqpDUo1+J8D NcXA9gRidlLVzLHHQcLkI65Xuo/9Gb4Ftj5DItAQvMSfLprj5PMtpGiWada/HByRt4yw3u9xs5I2Z WGkqrdmpQ==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-240-132.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.240.132]:58073 helo=[192.168.1.77]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1flEjp-001jnA-7i; Thu, 02 Aug 2018 10:38:02 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <D1D5EDCE-7C43-4CD8-947C-AA43CDB18892@employees.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 07:38:00 -0700
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, int-area <int-area@ietf.org>, intarea-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1B04E207-08FA-400F-BBED-67379FEFD64E@strayalpha.com>
References: <F227637E-B12D-45AA-AD69-74C947409012@ericsson.com> <0466770D-C8CA-49BB-AC10-5805CFDFB165@strayalpha.com> <6EDF0F79-C8F3-4F05-8442-FF55576ADDD0@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1807271530280.14354@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CALx6S35LthDLRry7k-pF8KSoX4BXBA8kyArOpDUAcJMDCoLQpQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1807280811540.14354@uplift.swm.pp.se> <8640DCF6-A525-4CF7-A89D-2DEDBF0FADC8@strayalpha.com> <FFF1C23B-7A24-46BC-929E-DD56C77D69A2@employees.org> <A248CA44-B568-4CB9-B450-067B1845AF9B@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S36w=5J0-=JQqrX0_PR7254V0HrhJct7oomPKdxSOSU43w@mail.gmail.com> <2872BF43-20AA-4179-9269-9C4FE6F5986B@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S35VidDr1uTGCHeb3Dcc0qF3O8Lz0vvV-XKPfbY057n6XA@mail.gmail.com> <cd34a1e8da6ff4bbf5b20875827d2a09@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S348jLsnHG3gp-mh9d4KJ1bROT3OcVz=XjwVgpv1aSsi_w@mail.gmail.com> <c271e9501b381c9be6ac1f3a0095a1d9@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S35DRCEjS5qaVkj2_FJzNumrkSfCZmoSJLueqqZs+pm9gw@mail.gmail.com> <240E40E2-81F9-4FAB-A271-825BD7AC6073@strayalpha.com> <96 EB5285-E0F6-43BB-A6CE-B087A4F8DF62@employees.org> <CALx6S36Ef3t7Axmx9hg994DHpVM=NdW-7ygf89E==gL4XKrkQg@mail.gmail.com> <5E21B3C1-0420-404C-9824-9B7E5A850BC5@employees.org> <CALx6S34qmKngi3hK_PVrJA1DMa5kfaLww3jfqRKN=up5v0Y0Ww@mail.gmail.com> <8D23C8B1-C2DA-4A8B-A2BE-8CCF6233B3A5@strayalpha.com> <D1D5EDCE-7C43-4CD8-947C-AA43CDB18892@employees.org>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/-7W6V_1Gswhq3_gpUC-EXP3D0LI>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 14:38:05 -0000

I am not ignoring them; I’m claiming that they all have the same inherent deployment and implementation limitations.

Just because operators/vendors “want” to do otherwise does not make it possible.

Joe

> On Aug 1, 2018, at 8:22 AM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> 
> But only if you continue to ignore that there are other IPv4 sharing mechanisms than NAT. 
> 
> Ole
> 
>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 16:11, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>> 
>> We all understand that many current NAT devices and their deployments are not compatible with IP fragmentation (v4 or v6).
>> 
>> That leaves us with two options:
>>   1. change IP, but that leaves us with problems for which we have no solution (encrypted payloads, other DPI devices that look further in, etc.)
>>   2. change NATs and how they’re deployed (to require reassembly or its equivalent before processing, to not be deployed except where they can act as the host they proxy for)
>> 
>> Both cost money and will have an impact.
>> 
>> #2 involves changing less devices AND has the benefit that we know it will work.
>> 
>> I see no good reason to continue to try #1 in the meantime.
>> 
>> Joe
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email