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

["Templin (US), Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

I agree with Tom and Joe. I don't think the document is far from being complete in
its current form, but I think addressing the points raised in these recent discussions
will bring about completion.

Thanks - Fred 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Int-area [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 8:28 AM
> To: Joe Touch <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile
> 
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi, all,
> >
> > I still think it would be useful for this doc to describe how tunnels interact with fragmentation (per draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels), which
> seems to be something I’ve noted several times before.
> >
> > I’m also still not thrilled with the title I’d be happier with “IP fragmentation still not supported per requirements”, and I’d have to see
> where this goes with final recommendations.
> >
> > But I agree *some* statement is worthwhile here. My primary concern is that if we’re not careful, endorsing the status quo will only
> ensure nothing changes.
> >
> > So I sincerely hope that some of the strongest recommendations here are that both direct IP devices and tunnel ingress/egress
> devices need to do a better job of supporting fragmentation, and that protocol/device designers SHOULD avoid mechanisms that are
> not compatible with fragmentation (e.g., NAT or DPI without doing reassembly first).
> >
> I agree.
> 
> Specifically, I think there should be a requrement that intermediate
> devices don't rely on doing DPI into transport layer, or if they need
> it then they should do some sort of pseudo reassmbly as Joe alludes
> to. Note that section 4.4 describes the problem of of fragmentation
> going through a load balancing (e.g. ECMP) where transport ports are
> used in the algorithm. This is solved in IPv6 by using flow label in
> the hash instead of transport layer ports, so I think that use of flow
> label for this purpose should be recommended somewhere in section 7.
> 
> Tom
> 
> > Joe
> >
> >> On Jul 24, 2018, at 12:42 PM, Wassim Haddad <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> We would like to start a WG adoption call for draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile (“IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile”).
> >>
> >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-03.txt
> >>
> >>
> >> Please indicate your preferences on the mailling list. The deadline is August 10th.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Juan & Wassim
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Int-area mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Int-area mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area