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

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Fri, 06 September 2019 01:17 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 9D7A21200B4; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 18:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] 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 Dr2FaS7X7LVX; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 18:17:01 -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 A3ACC120044; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 18:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject: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=tHsOpKNrkBFw251RupTTI9FtwvKVQIqF2UtSm/QDfGY=; b=RKhQifg/E1M/T4egGJEu4Wc3K7 yv31fv9Mzs2a7jNpiitrv0429KajA16uGMqwKqxuvXStUI23JoU2PSeR8Ea1MyJmvA4h5qgCv+2MF c6DVeQK5CalGQY6sYMKeWBWdmBcWjMWYzj9UKFJsEdLfYylqyhOkrzk/0cSzOvpg2mr6KqI6kQYyS 4bfkTNRYLHx6tmkTDyOiUf470G9F30RuDcH6dY0YAI14FmIeIYeF3LxiNFN4605jo/IEGxYC+gA7b +mkbJreK4tRbIN0foEVup3V2Uh01O7xFy+X7Ak/OSsZj+Kd9sNwYsyRhppDX8kritR/jK+iMtNgfx shmk0G8A==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:50200 helo=[192.168.1.12]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1i62ru-002GAw-Pn; Thu, 05 Sep 2019 21:17:00 -0400
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Cc: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>, "intarea-chairs@ietf.org" <intarea-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <efabc7c9f72c4cd9a31f56de24669640@boeing.com> <2EB90A57-9BBD-417C-AEDB-AFBFBB906956@gmail.com> <CAHw9_iKozCAC+8TGS0fSxVZ_3pJW7rnhoKy=Y3AxLqWEXvemcA@mail.gmail.com> <4C8FE1C4-0054-4DA1-BC6E-EBBE78695F1B@gmail.com> <CALx6S34e1X7y5koxmJXuOJKtJmeTHq2Q9FKX-71ZN=Q5LNBcWQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_i+sMh6gg=52VGCop5z2=quMAUakadkC0ehAb5eFoNbeLg@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S35Vh0KKHm7-+O_1p-7kA=xXCfm4CPPsdFiBAhpfF8ASNQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Message-ID: <569204cc-f73a-87b5-5a6c-5b2ec3ba2aea@strayalpha.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 18:16:52 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S35Vh0KKHm7-+O_1p-7kA=xXCfm4CPPsdFiBAhpfF8ASNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
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/3Qv8k4M8X1za-KvsHwNzDnFPjQ8>
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, 06 Sep 2019 01:17:03 -0000

On 9/5/2019 5:20 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> That's exactly how fragmentation is productively used today,
> particularly in those use cases of IPIP tunneling where fragmentation.
> There was a lot of discussion about this on the list. Telling someone
> who has been happily using fragmentation for years that they shouldn't
> use in their new applications they want to deploy seems trite to me.

It's worth noting that apps don't always have any control over whether
they use such tunnels or not, or whether they can override the OS's keen
desire in using the largest MTUs possible (e.g., in TCP).

Joe