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

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Fri, 06 September 2019 04:05 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@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 D61741208D8; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 21:05:36 -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 GUWehGfrlsNj; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 21:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x430.google.com (mail-wr1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::430]) (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 5C5601208E1; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 21:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x430.google.com with SMTP id u16so5037304wrr.0; Thu, 05 Sep 2019 21:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=u+f7p0jRDfkgxSPNFA+4WNicaOcsrKS2UQ5+UFLDxyc=; b=Ub3TWYhujrByuBq6r5nNo0hpe0XsR+Orc3pmWaHl/WzWeR29wn+bd05Rifk6Y7To5G kuK9pwvNtkW460NpKLvs0ynpkJ4ip4j4pnsB4sp6EboKgUhJlxJUPTMMourvZ8lvd8Ly Ev8DSV6DjTFN2ZbrHCtbjpQ7DgXRjCgkvUvT5coNYu/eJRvkHr29yxD6IagCAaEsVuDm x32syovG79DMSC6wp8dadrkIk2C3BboVWVWschYhDRBlHdC8Lr2NOHIXwo9b9wtJl8jF s1Gb7KYAu/cxU+hXgbG6Owrj699JzeHatV9kKVmgwfBPXlM03mDCgFv2Ce9UayeMOk/Z OKUQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=u+f7p0jRDfkgxSPNFA+4WNicaOcsrKS2UQ5+UFLDxyc=; b=EiSOW4Lr6EjiQsGtkH64pNzubPcmrDnqa/D1ar2SNZPZ6ozqb0sVyGQC67LGLo4Dd5 rxhWBOJdFHIwQRAOaDzInMVHaXFulkTttAdcVYjSdAEpAqvrN6FZpAuy0OxA4Irqx7ga JLSo2gSijLucMnlJ+DPGi6qPzTlpuU0KCiDn0wuY20xHdPZYKRyYg8LVsPk520ohqXeN QaZiFLMR5JUBNwcP0FYHTvmrkLHnncMZaMj3TUonnkf958xoXBhyAIZWejt+9obq2nq0 /Pl3EIUVwmnVFlgFoyNlqt7mU17O3Nr3M7kwNEqsJl89k/nkNbKADeRdKEHIxr4ckaiv rlqQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUKxnkjm1IAGNWqSMiEy2L7Fiss4YYG6Tl2VrteyK/j8OxAwIOH 1wGHMytlxmoX6MrDwSA7lz4o76wL
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyojQjwMtSPeS9gYr2MPRDTJbhXC7GuEgKjHARDfbsh5WnU5A2UJSxfEru43BEuXYNY2Jn8uw==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4d92:: with SMTP id b18mr4980416wru.116.1567742732592; Thu, 05 Sep 2019 21:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:ef0b:8589:2b50:34e1:ce14? ([2601:647:5a00:ef0b:8589:2b50:34e1:ce14]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u68sm6760647wmu.12.2019.09.05.21.05.29 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Sep 2019 21:05:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <E770BEF0-D901-4CD0-96E6-C626B560DCD6@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C9AC8D27-98A7-49F4-BD16-9E854D3EEBBD"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 21:05:26 -0700
In-Reply-To: <ab0d5600-d71c-9f0b-2955-64074e040bc6@strayalpha.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.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>, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
To: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@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> <BYAPR05MB5463F112A3FFA8CE6378F3D3AEBB0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <ab0d5600-d71c-9f0b-2955-64074e040bc6@strayalpha.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/AxH4-UdJqRrHaJB5hStTdEu0V64>
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 04:05:37 -0000

Hi,

Joe and I talked off list.   The result is below.  Changes were to add a sentence in the forth and fifth paragraphs.

Please review.

Bob

----------

6.1.  For Application and Protocol Developers

   Developers SHOULD NOT develop new protocols or applications that rely
   on IP fragmentation.  When a new protocol or application is deployed
   in an environment that does not fully support IP fragmentation, it
   SHOULD operate correctly, either in its default configuration or in a
   specified alternative configuration.

   While there may be controlled environments where IP fragmentation
   works reliably, this is a deployment issue and can not be known to
   someone developing a new protocol or application.  It is not
   recommended that new protocols or applications be developed that rely
   on IP fragmentation.  Protocols and applications that rely on IP
   fragmentation will work less reliably on the Internet unless they
   also include mechanisms to detect that IP fragmentation isn't working
   reliably.

   Legacy protocols that depend upon IP fragmentation SHOULD be updated
   to break that dependency.  However, in some cases, there may be no
   viable alternative to IP fragmentation (e.g., IPSEC tunnel mode, IP-
   in-IP encapsulation).  Applications and protocols cannot necessarily
   know or control whether they use lower layers or network paths that
   rely on such fragmentation.  In these cases, the protocol will
   continue to rely on IP fragmentation but should only be used in
   environments where IP fragmentation is known to be supported.

   Protocols may be able to avoid IP fragmentation by using a
   sufficiently small MTU (e.g.  The protocol minimum link MTU),
   disabling IP fragmentation, and ensuring that the transport protocol
   in use adapts its segment size to the MTU.  Other protocols may
   deploy a sufficiently reliable PMTU discovery mechanism
   (e.g.,PLMPTUD).  The risks of IP fragmentation can also be mitigated
   through the use of encapsulation, e.g., by transmitting IP fragments
   as payloads.

   UDP applications SHOULD abide by the recommendations stated in
   Section 3.2 of [RFC8085].

—————



> On Sep 5, 2019, at 6:18 PM, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
> 
> Although this is close, it misses the mark a little on the issue that
> the app may not actually have any control here - or know how or when to
> reduce its MTU. That might be a minor point to add, but is worth adding.
> This isn't just an app layer issue.
> 
> Joe
> 
> On 9/5/2019 4:45 PM, Ron Bonica wrote:
>> Bob,
>> 
>> I think that this is a close to consensus as we are going to get.
>> 
>>                                           Ron
>> 
>> 
>> Juniper Business Use Only
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 2:29 PM
>> To: int-area@ietf.org
>> Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>om>; Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>in>; IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>om>; draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org; intarea-chairs@ietf.org; Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>
>> Subject: Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Based on the discussion, I would like to propose to see if this will resolve the issues raised.   It attempts to cover the issues raised.
>> 
>> The full section 6.1 is included below, but only the last sentence in the second paragraph changed.
>> 
>> Please review and comment.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Bob
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 6.1.  For Application and Protocol Developers
>> 
>>   Developers SHOULD NOT develop new protocols or applications that rely
>>   on IP fragmentation.  When a new protocol or application is deployed
>>   in an environment that does not fully support IP fragmentation, it
>>   SHOULD operate correctly, either in its default configuration or in a
>>   specified alternative configuration.
>> 
>>   While there may be controlled environments where IP fragmentation
>>   works reliably, this is a deployment issue and can not be known to
>>   someone developing a new protocol or application.  It is not
>>   recommended that new protocols or applications be developed that rely
>>   on IP fragmentation.  Protocols and applications that rely on IP
>>   fragmentation will work less reliably on the Internet unless they
>>   also include mechanisms to detect that IP fragmentation isn't working
>>   reliably.
>> 
>>   Legacy protocols that depend upon IP fragmentation SHOULD be updated
>>   to break that dependency.  However, in some cases, there may be no
>>   viable alternative to IP fragmentation (e.g., IPSEC tunnel mode, IP-
>>   in-IP encapsulation).  In these cases, the protocol will continue to
>>   rely on IP fragmentation but should only be used in environments
>>   where IP fragmentation is known to be supported.
>> 
>>   Protocols may be able to avoid IP fragmentation by using a
>>   sufficiently small MTU (e.g.  The protocol minimum link MTU),
>>   disabling IP fragmentation, and ensuring that the transport protocol
>>   in use adapts its segment size to the MTU.  Other protocols may
>>   deploy a sufficiently reliable PMTU discovery mechanism
>>   (e.g.,PLMPTUD).
>> 
>>   UDP applications SHOULD abide by the recommendations stated in
>>   Section 3.2 of [RFC8085].
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Int-area mailing list
>> Int-area@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area