Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Fri, 13 September 2019 14:07 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 DB90C12083B for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 07:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.218
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.218 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 bddqNJIxHgwB for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 07:07:39 -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 7706C1200F9 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 07:07:39 -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:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: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=ejPYEGIGLHO6nuIJcJTSTObe5xOutmpIV5gexbYKMoY=; b=VozXViga94bC2V24LxjKk9qMR bWp6PKLzbkdNx40wUBY/OKXtoimWZt4zRJt+GKE3Ig7/RbIskHQHDyTSnEin3OSTSXcv3Y8/jqkOF B23iiS4AQUpbwkC17pbfHzClXHuAlO+vXPrClv5djlHGfNDPvYE2TNzRMZsNOnhI/Upe0HLzoy1nl 2zDOShNBYhdCS04Q+Sqbqivpyids6HrPG4SqyT8SyMgm9GuycTg+ttG+fqTgq2HEJX2cZY/XzeiLC cN4hIGyzk7GFSYlVkgNjT15Hhk7cfTkQ01GxnTz+Piy274x2x2CHkR4d9/VE/EMqFhqwRTo6/zNwu zsW+YU93g==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:59204 helo=[192.168.1.10]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1i8mER-000dI4-La; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 10:07:32 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FF8FFF69-295E-4CB6-8260-4FD4EABB1869"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <0D884720-9551-4402-9A7B-76E36254F94E@employees.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 07:07:26 -0700
Cc: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <839782ED-34CC-49D2-B813-9C992447D75A@strayalpha.com>
References: <BYAPR05MB546399E5CB3DD6D87B9F3E2BAEB00@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <92ed853e0df9431481e6ce54152bf561@boeing.com> <0D884720-9551-4402-9A7B-76E36254F94E@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/-PkFN6emkkqJFtgMu6zg5OmbEtU>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:07:44 -0000


> On Sep 13, 2019, at 4:59 AM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> 
>> Ron, it is just a drop in the bucket compared with the amount of discussion since
>> "Fragmentation Considered Harmful (1987)". But, I think we now clearly see a
>> case where  fragmentation is *required*.
> 
> Absolutely. As tunnels produce a new link-layer, that can (should) be a function of that link-layer.
> Network layer fragmentation is not needed for that.
> (For the purpose of making the point and to set future direction, ignoring existing IP tunnel mechanisms).


IP in IP tunneling is the point here. It’s both a standard and widely used.

What’s the point of omitting it or setting that as a direction?

Joe