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

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 13 September 2019 12:00 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 92B1E120133 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 05:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=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 OqDC8sMAbkzD for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 05:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5974B12008A for <int-area@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 05:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [IPv6:2a02:2121:344:9109:1512:6261:40b5:f7c1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 22A334E12960; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:00:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF591C45C75; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:59:56 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <92ed853e0df9431481e6ce54152bf561@boeing.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:59:56 +0200
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0D884720-9551-4402-9A7B-76E36254F94E@employees.org>
References: <BYAPR05MB546399E5CB3DD6D87B9F3E2BAEB00@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <92ed853e0df9431481e6ce54152bf561@boeing.com>
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/3K84fXJT74w28YVaNhf4wHUmHRg>
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 12:00:06 -0000

Fred,

> 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).

Cheers,
Ole