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

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Thu, 26 July 2018 18:21 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 759D8130E83; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 11:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 j5jEoNYvNyZm; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 11:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.179]) (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 DC065130E7F; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 11:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id w6QILeoU021386; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 11:21:40 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.220]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id w6QILZbp021256 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 26 Jul 2018 11:21:35 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:eede::8988:eede) by XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdc::8988:efdc) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 11:21:34 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) by XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) with mapi id 15.00.1367.000; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 11:21:34 -0700
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
CC: "internet-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, "intarea-chairs@ietf.org" <intarea-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile
Thread-Index: AQHUJPU+FkqwG7lztkapJHj3/IpHTqSh0GTA
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 18:21:34 +0000
Message-ID: <93949851724543a5be4609e687b30649@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <F227637E-B12D-45AA-AD69-74C947409012@ericsson.com> <0466770D-C8CA-49BB-AC10-5805CFDFB165@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S34fPKNuUpCkzysSJHmbqDE2TCegwNXo6npGh=f_YapXPw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S34fPKNuUpCkzysSJHmbqDE2TCegwNXo6npGh=f_YapXPw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/EKxLHzHySI-NFlR-UZP_U_zeX8U>
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: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 18:21:44 -0000

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:int-area-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 8:28 AM
> To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
> Cc: internet-area@ietf.org <int-area@ietf.org>rg>; intarea-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile
> 
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> 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 <wassim.haddad@ericsson.com> 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
> >> Int-area@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Int-area mailing list
> > Int-area@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area