IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-area] IPv6 fragmentation for IPv4

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Tue, 23 May 2017 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 96910129C4E for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 May 2017 10:44:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 czuJVlTnuHKx for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 May 2017 10:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.178]) (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 27CB2127137 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 May 2017 10:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v4NHiDHY047151; Tue, 23 May 2017 10:44:14 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.238.222]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v4NHi5W9046699 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 23 May 2017 10:44:05 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:eede::8988:eede) by XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:eede::8988:eede) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Tue, 23 May 2017 10:44:04 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) by XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Tue, 23 May 2017 10:44:04 -0700
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
CC: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] IPv6 fragmentation for IPv4
Thread-Index: AdLT3WVYMdiisvTeTLyu7THIVnRQuAASKCMAAA6V56A=
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 17:44:04 +0000
Message-ID: <7d5f1e8643c84cd9813342fa31fd8c70@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <da864471c7b648eea3d9d93029209660@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CALx6S34Y546UGLvGnxBZ=KdyTRuaTNFE2YMb2Ap1=JgT4fnCzw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S34Y546UGLvGnxBZ=KdyTRuaTNFE2YMb2Ap1=JgT4fnCzw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/7G1V47VswjVnCm1OGG76iGxKmR8>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv6 fragmentation for IPv4
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 23 May 2017 17:44:17 -0000

Hi Tom,

I am thinking about source-fragmentation only, then send all fragments with
DF=1 so they won't be further fragmented in the network.

One use case would be for IP-in-IPv4 tunneling when there is no GUE header.
I haven't thought much about other use cases, but it should apply to any IP/X
encapsulations (X could be TCP, for example).

Thanks - Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:tom@herbertland.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 10:38 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org; Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv6 fragmentation for IPv4
> 
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Templin, Fred L
> <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> > Joe, I wanted to run an idea by you. We all know that IPv4 fragmentation has
> > problems because of the 16-bit ID field. So, why not insert an IPv6 Fragment
> > Header between the IPv4 header and the upper layer protocol data, then
> > use IPv6-style fragmentation instead of IPv4 fragmentation?
> >
> Hi Fred,
> 
> What is the use case for this? Unlike IPv6, IPv4 fragmentation can be
> done a routers so this technique wouldn't work in that case. If the
> fragmentation is occurring at tunnel ingress its probably just as easy
> to fragment as part of the encapsulation like we do in GUE.
> 
> Tom
> 
> > So, the IPv4 Protocol field would be set to '44', the IPv4 header would be
> > followed by an IPv6 Fragment Header, and the "Next Header" field in the
> > IPv6 Fragment Header would be set to the Protocol Number for the upper
> > layer protocol. Then, upon fragmentation, each fragment would have an
> > IPv4 header followed by an IPv6 Fragment Header.
> >
> > This format is shown in Figure 6 in Appendix A of the AERO draft:
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-aerolink/
> >
> > Does this look like something that should be broken out and put into a
> > little standalone document?
> >
> > Thanks - Fred
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Int-area mailing list
> > Int-area@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email