Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 04 September 2019 02:18 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 E872612008D; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 19:18:19 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 oHnydxR7pQ3y; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 19:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 720F112007C; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 19:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.14] (ppp-94-69-228-25.home.otenet.gr [94.69.228.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 29A0D860A4; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 04:18:11 +0200 (CEST)
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
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>, "intarea-chairs@ietf.org" <intarea-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <156751558566.9632.10416223948753711891.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <B7C5DF29-92B2-477B-9C30-F47E338038EE@strayalpha.com> <efabc7c9f72c4cd9a31f56de24669640@boeing.com> <9331E721-F7F8-4C22-9BE4-E266726B3702@gmail.com> <7bfbaf5fa12c4a9bac3e46ece5dfdcde@boeing.com> <0BF34BFA-5F30-4EE1-9F5E-18D9ECA8D424@gmail.com> <CALx6S37xhhS5ezhJu6-HQmftwY9cBzuCxeaW9thTbKBa2hizcw@mail.gmail.com> <4219167a-9375-ec11-95f1-5de8890acf1d@si6networks.com> <CALx6S37Erj9zbsCmtd4N39Ng03NN173U57ZXYXj8-E7JiAMs+w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <cfe383f8-aa02-f468-f5e2-9e4eb71bb4f3@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 04:56:51 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S37Erj9zbsCmtd4N39Ng03NN173U57ZXYXj8-E7JiAMs+w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/Ao4xXzV1OsF2J1ROMrpZMlcXwdc>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)
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: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 02:18:20 -0000

On 4/9/19 00:34, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 1:49 PM Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/9/19 23:33, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>> Bob,
>>>
[....]
>> "fragile" means that it fails in an uncceptably large number of cases.
>> ~30 failure rate is not acceptable. ~20% isn't, either.
>>
> Okay, so then the definition of a fragile protocol is one that has a
> failure rate greater than 20%? If so, then that should really be
> stated in the draft. But, then I'd point out that per
> https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, IPv6 is only
> supported by 30% of the Internet at best, so it fails 70% of the time.
> So by that same definition, isn't IPv6 fragile?

That's of course a bad analogy. Where there's no IPv6, you just don't
use IPv6. -- IPv6 is not broken, because you simply don't use it.

IPv6 broken-ness existed when hosts would try it, but it would fail.
This was indeed the reason why content providers didn't enable v6 at the
time, and the reason why Happy Eyeballs was introduced -- to overcome
the <10% IPv6 brokenness at the time, which was unacceptable to content
providers.

What's the specific number that's unacceptable? -- I'd personally that
at the very least, anything over 10%. I wonder if you'd go on of
vacation with your car if you new it had a 30% chance of breaking apart.

That said, Bob is addressing the comments that were made on this thread,
so this discussion is rather spurious, I think

-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492