Re: [Int-area] Is IPv6 End-to-End? R.I.P. Architecture? (Fwd: Errata #5933 for RFC8200)

[Andrew Alston <[e-mail]>]

I raised the issue of the limitations imposed by RFC 7112 during the course of this saga – it’s on the list of things that were bluntly and shamelessly ignored without a single comment before this document mysteriously was declared to be moving forward out of last call on the basis of some +1’s.

Thanks

Andrew


From: ietf <[e-mail]> on behalf of Joseph Touch <[e-mail]>
Date: Sunday, 1 March 2020 at 05:21
To: Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Internet Architecture Board <[e-mail]>, Internet Area <[e-mail]>, IETF <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Is IPv6 End-to-End? R.I.P. Architecture? (Fwd: Errata #5933 for RFC8200)




On Feb 29, 2020, at 5:46 PM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

I did look at the protocols involved here; the ingress does add headers but doesn’t appear to handle fragmentation.
That’s a non-starter if you want your packets to traverse a network because people WILL hand you 1280-byte packets, so what will you do?

FWIW, we have been insisting on this point (and others) since they first tried to push EH insertion in draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header.

THey removed it from *that* document, but they keep trying to push similar ideas in other documents.

Well its seems simple to me - they need a plan for fragmentation or it’s simply a nonstarter because they can’t support 1280-B packets traversing the network.

No amount of “but this is what the user wants” translates to “they want their packets dropped silently”.

Joe