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

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Thu, 05 September 2019 19:57 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 42786120B2B; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 12:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 35OWyNO8oyjw; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 12:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.162]) (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 B1D7C120B1F; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 12:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id x85JvQ0E012002; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 15:57:26 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-07.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-07.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.109]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id x85JvKm7010940 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 5 Sep 2019 15:57:20 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-07.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.109) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 12:57:19 -0700
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5%2]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 12:57:19 -0700
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.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>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>, "intarea-chairs@ietf.org" <intarea-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile
Thread-Index: AQHVZBu+g+noOeKUhUusN2pd6k/s8Kcd7pwA//+Q8nA=
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 19:57:18 +0000
Message-ID: <b2514dbe6d69463893077c38bf69d61e@boeing.com>
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> <b756262692d54930896218abc8316926@boeing.com> <8E1A6788-AE6D-41D5-B124-9653CD0FCE8D@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8E1A6788-AE6D-41D5-B124-9653CD0FCE8D@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: 15CFA371C13039AC53C67758B402E778B3B384E58C71507938A211C90D69CC412000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/CuStu15raSZf4QKfWb_fJEVoz0U>
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: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 19:57:32 -0000

Bob,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2019 12:33 PM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>om>; int-area@ietf.org; IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>om>; draft-
> ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org; Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>om>; intarea-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile
> 
> Fred,
> 
> > On Sep 5, 2019, at 11:57 AM, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > Your effort is appreciated, but IMHO does not quite go far enough. Here is
> > a proposed edit:
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> >
> > OLD:
> >   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.
> >
> > NEW:
> >   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, or encapsulate their fragments in protocol headers that can
> >   traverse fragment-dropping middleboxes.
> 
> I am not sure we want or should add specific mechanisms here.  Encapsulation is one approach, but there are others.

s/encapsulate/disguise

?

Fred

> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> >
> > Thanks - Fred
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden
> >> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2019 11:29 AM
> >> To: int-area@ietf.org
> >> Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>om>; draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org; Suresh Krishnan
> >> <suresh@kaloom.com>om>; intarea-chairs@ietf.org
> >> Subject: [Int-area] 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].
> >