IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 27 July 2018 20:28 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 02E3C130DF5; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 13:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 4GJ_4zaLYiAR; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 13:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from accordion.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B79E129385; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 13:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.10.187] (30.51-175-112.customer.lyse.net [51.175.112.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by accordion.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC7222D526F; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 20:28:27 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15G77)
In-Reply-To: <7e9260c4-462f-35bc-b962-cc85230058e2@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 22:28:24 +0200
Cc: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, "internet-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, "intarea-chairs@ietf.org" <intarea-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4D481FC7-BCE4-4F2D-AF16-7EF054D0AAA0@employees.org>
References: <F227637E-B12D-45AA-AD69-74C947409012@ericsson.com> <0466770D-C8CA-49BB-AC10-5805CFDFB165@strayalpha.com> <8e5ba0b3-837e-02d1-d9d9-7c5e596c1774@gont.com.ar> <CALx6S34VMeLS7bqL4Zt0xZ+==5hUT7Q2=5m01a14mJ4B3J6G3g@mail.gmail.com> <50a1e177-6b37-b89a-2caf-5caf1cbc955b@gont.com.ar> <7e9260c4-462f-35bc-b962-cc85230058e2@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/GfX5PqImQ_MUH2RjktUUXERXg0I>
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: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 20:28:31 -0000


> On 27 Jul 2018, at 22:12, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Fragmentation, (PL)PMTUD, extension headers, and innovative
> L4 protocols are very possibly not viable on the open Internet.
> At least, we can't assume that they will work on arbitrary paths.
> Sad but apparently true.

Hasn’t this been discussed ad infinitum in the ossification work?
If you want to generalize, nothing is guaranteed to work across an arbitrary path in the Internet. 

So what? This is part of a tussle and it would be making a self fulfilling prophecy for us to take all policy based filtering or other brokenness into consideration when designing protocols. 

Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email