Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 27 August 2018 08:52 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 4F37B130E9B; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 01:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 lAa7IFTcAuXC; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 01:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from accordion.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57062130EA1; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 01:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.210.168.55] (77.16.216.55.tmi.telenormobil.no [77.16.216.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by accordion.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3C1B02D4FA7; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 08:52:31 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-0D5991E4-2B99-4197-8C89-2BCC696C746F
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15G77)
In-Reply-To: <4840E0E6-FA33-4969-A75B-B58A6F0C379E@strayalpha.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 10:52:27 +0200
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, int-area <int-area@ietf.org>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, intarea-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <2A25FA5A-DE7E-415D-9E03-AB308ACE730C@employees.org>
References: <CALx6S36Ef3t7Axmx9hg994DHpVM=NdW-7ygf89E==gL4XKrkQg@mail.gmail.com> <5E21B3C1-0420-404C-9824-9B7E5A850BC5@employees.org> <CALx6S34qmKngi3hK_PVrJA1DMa5kfaLww3jfqRKN=up5v0Y0Ww@mail.gmail.com> <8D23C8B1-C2DA-4A8B-A2BE-8CCF6233B3A5@strayalpha.com> <D1D5EDCE-7C43-4CD8-947C-AA43CDB18892@employees.org> <1B04E207-08FA-400F-BBED-67379FEFD64E@strayalpha.com> <137751A3-7C52-4CCF-AE9C-B99C4A85EFC1@strayalpha.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1808021749020.19688@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CALx6S35kw2dodgG2L3LE3A5y8RYEXy6izQWgrQTwg7-yPqpzOg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1808030857370.19688@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20180825032457.ol5rlrr7h2kqi6px@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CALx6S35-n_ROEZv0NReVEWTUhnyc25SNJb5DaeqtnxPAPk6QjQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAF493D3-37A2-4A89-BA88-81567E5B88F1@huitema.net> <538A6193-2BD7-4E72-BD28-736B81F97B33@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S34uKA9XYP8Mguw1bf+nby_NXWA1GQk88C+Dmtw56ZxF8g@mail.gmail.com> <0E93CA77-907B-4EBE-BC13-27BFF78AD25C@strayalpha.com> <A9F9EFD0-D246-4883-8462-0074280559 A9@employees.org> <E9BA9506-54B9-4003-A821-0F9EBA1C9D5D@strayalpha.com> <AFF8E4CF-FFB3-460D-BF21-F74B9C37BD23@employees.org> <4840E0E6-FA33-4969-A75B-B58A6F0C379E@strayalpha.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/9wnuCGrpunmIrbIMexoneKsqQnE>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 08:52:40 -0000

Joe,

> On 27 Aug 2018, at 10:27, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Aug 26, 2018, at 11:55 PM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Joe,
>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 26 Aug 2018, at 23:12, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> As I’ve mentioned, there are rules under which a NAT is a valid Internet device, but it is simply not just a router.
>>>> 
>>>> If there really was, can you point to where those rules are? Describing the behavior of the host stack and applications?
>>> 
>>> The principles are described and explained here:
>>> 
>>> Touch, J: Middlebox Models Compatible with the Internet. USC/ISI (ISI-TR-711), 2016. (
>>> 
>> 
>> I don’t want to dismiss this completely, but it hand waves over how applications are supposed to work in this new Internet architecture. 
>> You can define your way out of breaking end-to-end, but that doesn’t mean you can ignore all the issues of NAT traversal.
> 
> You’ve missed the point - if the middleboxes describe behave as required, apps do not need to change. They work as they would in an Internet without those boxes.

Quite likely.
Do you have a document describing how my SIP application works?
Ore are you saying PCP, ICE, TURN etc is part of your architecture?

Cheers 
Ole