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

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 13 September 2019 12:06 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.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 10A10120091 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 05:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 G9H6OWwHK-FP for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 05:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x635.google.com (mail-pl1-x635.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::635]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1518D12008A for <int-area@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 05:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x635.google.com with SMTP id f19so13138884plr.3 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 05:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=KF7olxv0CG1ADN83zXZhHEDNxSjl9hDv90vExxZb9hI=; b=DD5PgIpZKE3Gq3xSU0gjERQeoIR7d2EXE8M8DFK5GzHTyOk631fjRRitq4ZKwai3He IaNKJKuA0JXdevuWglDiVQo12VF06vs8DMknJUCdWN/Ulmku5Ogxw6xTMrGRpKA7uy7s mm0gT/5bGWZY2b+AFCW13YjypWDPr1swRHK7lTiE04A8Bk3Pb4H7pkyuDIYgyCQELgQV SB+dzOV0sxXY6prYq+YLW7lo1Btz4h7a/dvKhjsESgs5m1oBtcdKTLE3NcEAQCR5HGGu IoPXOMKp3uUUiZ4l+XnE94hR7a2mdV5baAatjZE3jcwJCe7ZRZ4lcpjqctGAs9BDBhAf Xfjw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=KF7olxv0CG1ADN83zXZhHEDNxSjl9hDv90vExxZb9hI=; b=aWJE3c4snpbcKgUAz0pNGZh2QfUUANzTkmbsK7NRe4OR1mzYAPELKzvVIBVbZgyV4r OpU045T7S2+MbpyQlk0y/3PZbUngmLOn3dNXRe9ViWI7/hltptByhmVBEYk+eAr+hlME HJ3u5/kaJTxetv58aAuw/E7eEno1+NYBdgKDBJ4S/e4MZscY+LXATLrGKWq4GCboUhWe qc5ebxXqWbY+en0Wf5xnWTixn8irlCaBOKv7n2egtTu8IdLOh5O1HOMv5A69mTUEMdia Ufbi5/1+A3w2u8vU3BGdc8OXQ13aLYGcgDbshgU839C7LIvkDkgL1JMSEgqVQQhWMDSq cnqA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUxZRlBKWahCIJrzGaRvxhokmuW9cs2nlA54VBRoL++cR9nK6Uf OS2hj7PelEjzcarN7r6AHVI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz6keNBx4cbr1WWDhxpUhL6xIls//bgSqkGBwop2OOLSordekNiyi0pzmRid7AS77uJVnuI8A==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:5c3:: with SMTP id f61mr45583598plf.98.1568376365621; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 05:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 205.66.20.149.in-addr.arpa (205.66.20.149.in-addr.arpa. [149.20.66.205]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y6sm40189237pfp.82.2019.09.13.05.06.01 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Sep 2019 05:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3578.1\))
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0D884720-9551-4402-9A7B-76E36254F94E@employees.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 15:05:58 +0300
Cc: Fred Templin <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CE68F4EE-725F-4A6E-AD24-2DEA9BD873CD@gmail.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 (2.3578.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/7DAjUd3vrApfpb5I2j3aovuWWvc>
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 12:06:09 -0000

And the link layer could include capabilities such as described in RFC 1990...

> On Sep 13, 2019, at 2:59 PM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area