Re: [Int-area] Stateless devices and IP fragmentation

[Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

Fair enough. Does the following text work?

                                   Ron

7.3.  For Middle Box Developers

Middle boxes SHOULD process IP fragments in a manner that is compliant with RFC 791 and RFC 8200. In many cases, middle boxes must maintain state in order to achieve this goal.

Price and performance considerations frequently motivate network operators to deploy stateless middle boxes.  These stateless middle boxes may perform sub-optimally, process IP fragments in a manner that is not compliant with RFC 791 or RFC 8200, or even discard IP fragments completely. Providers of such middle boxes MUST document product's their behavior.

The behaviors exhibited by the above-mentioned devices are not desirable. However, one behavior may be acceptable to one network operator while another behavior is acceptable to another network operator. Middle box vendors MUST provide network operators with all of the information required to  make intelligent middle box deployment decisions.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 10:44 PM
> To: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>; Tom Herbert
> <[e-mail]>; Joe Touch <[e-mail]>
> Cc: int-area <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Stateless devices and IP fragmentation
> 
> >  These stateless middle boxes may perform sub-optimally or process IP
> > fragments in a manner that is not compliant with RFC 791 or RFC 8200.
> 
> That seems to skirt round the real concern. Middleboxes don't exist in the
> world assumed by RFC 791 or 8200, so those RFCs don't place any compliance
> requirements on middleboxes. It's simply implicit that datagrams get delivered
> whether fragmented or not. RFC 1812 doesn't seem to mention that routers
> MUST forward fragments, presumably because it's blindingly obvious. Same
> for draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis and draft-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs.
> 
> So at least can we say:
> 
> These stateless middle boxes may perform sub-optimally, process IP fragments
> in a manner that is not compliant with RFC 791 or RFC 8200, or even discard
> IP fragments completely.
> 
> Regards
>    Brian
> 
> On 2018-11-16 10:35, Ron Bonica wrote:
> > Tom, Joe, Brian,
> >
> > I haven't seen a response to this message. Can I assume that you are OK with
> this text?
> >
> >                                      Ron
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ron Bonica
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 4:35 PM
> >> To: Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: int-area <[e-mail]>; Joe Touch <[e-mail]>
> >> Subject: RE: [Int-area] Stateless devices and IP fragmentation
> >>
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> We thrashing over the example. Can everybody agree to the following
> text?
> >>
> >>                                                Ron
> >>
> >> 7.3.  For Middle Box Developers
> >>
> >> Middle boxes SHOULD process IP fragments in a manner that is
> >> compliant with RFC 791 and RFC 8200. In many cases, middle boxes must
> >> maintain state in order to achieve this goal.
> >>
> >> Price and performance considerations frequently motivate network
> >> operators to deploy stateless middle boxes. These stateless middle
> >> boxes may perform sub-optimally or process IP fragments in a manner
> >> that is not compliant with RFC 791 or RFC 8200. Providers of such
> >> middle boxes MUST document product's their behavior.
> >>
> >> The behaviors exhibited by the above-mentioned devices are not desirable.
> >> However, one behavior may be acceptable to one network operator while
> >> another behavior is acceptable to another network operator. Middle
> >> box vendors MUST provide network operators with all of the
> >> information required to  make intelligent middle box deployment decisions.