IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Side meeting follow-up: What exact features do we want from the Internet?

"touch@strayalpha.com" <touch@strayalpha.com> Wed, 08 December 2021 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 C9C643A0BB8 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 13:02:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.318
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.318 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 m2NmkUUQovkQ for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 13:02:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-1.web-hosting.com (server217-1.web-hosting.com [198.54.114.226]) (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 3DBA53A0BB3 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 13:02:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=hr9XzJ9kE72FGotHHXEbLh7P3Pxb0NQeNdepDC+ew1s=; b=fle051vZvtD43StfmZcLVq83XL zEep94R0ww7Wtciz3ckfYZT+NHhTTIr2UiSop7svqGXQ7sZw2stN4zDYH6WEtIKxorOGPSLNNSuWo 4E9JMkDbe/FkAIiI6Nc8DgGpcpwnMJGMg+Qm7N1M6H5evFtomwlCP/j5oMadsX5QbfJ2g3gXxJl1v rPPkHKnj3uwjP9YIifN1Wxvyw5cxCkoE2Bdg9Makkwcy6wkG65kYtV1QOyY/ZD8XNTcZ2u141Obk5 8oqaQgrYwO33J6iimU3cO2ZEF5dzsxgY0IreP8lp6+7RAeZ0Yu6tH9XTIqheFIGD5HaHyeOw2JRvj O4/9+K+w==;
Received: from cpe-172-114-237-88.socal.res.rr.com ([172.114.237.88]:55698 helo=smtpclient.apple) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1mv45K-006IfC-E3; Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:02:47 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_056500AD-49AA-42D2-BF33-06F74D86136F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.20.0.1.32\))
From: "touch@strayalpha.com" <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <4e8ede525e3841ceb7a6d653b24af78b@boeing.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2021 13:02:41 -0800
Cc: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <125ADB61-9FFC-444F-856E-5EAA0862307C@strayalpha.com>
References: <0fdf164533574343b80edd9d4fd9b261@boeing.com> <D36A271B-7DF8-43B1-B93C-D875EDD7866A@strayalpha.com> <4e8ede525e3841ceb7a6d653b24af78b@boeing.com>
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.20.0.1.32)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/GF0t-7yAIDe6r9qxZEO8XJ1hvvs>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Side meeting follow-up: What exact features do we want from the Internet?
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area WG 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, 08 Dec 2021 21:02:53 -0000

Not sure why - you asked, AFIACT, how BCPs for link design affect things that don’t design links (NATs).

I confirmed that they don’t.

Was there a different question?

Joe
—
Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com

> On Dec 8, 2021, at 12:39 PM, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> 
> Joe, I am having a hard time seeing your response as anything other than a
> non-answer to my question.
> 
> Fred
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: touch@strayalpha.com [mailto:touch@strayalpha.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2021 12:11 PM
>> To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
>> Cc: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>; int-area@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Side meeting follow-up: What exact features do we want from the Internet?
>> 
>> Hi, Fred,
>> 
>>> On Dec 8, 2021, at 11:52 AM, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Joe, RFC3819, Section 2 in particular gives BCPs for setting link MTUs.
>> 
>> NATs and tunnels don’t have control over the link MTUs over which they operate; the user doesn’t have control over how those are
>> composed or interact.
>> 
>>> By my read, the
>>> only links that would set an MTU smaller than 576 should therefore only occur at the
>>> network edges; not somewhere in the middle of the network.
>> 
>> Tunnels create an tunnel MTU (which is the link MTU, thinking of the tunnel as a link) by fragmenting at the ingress and reassembling at the
>> egress.
>> 
>> That happens anywhere in the network. While it PRESENTS an effective MTU of the tunnel as a link, it doesn’t operate as if it avoids
>> fragmentation.
>> 
>> Joe
>

v2.41.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status