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

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Thu, 02 August 2018 19:15 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 033701286E3; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 12:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.989
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham 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 If1kkVRVeB7y; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 12:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (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 6B087127B92; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 12:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc: To:From:Date:Content-Type:MIME-Version: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=nXZDJoYN/YS/JybqiA4DuxboAHB7+9VyuSJU2Lf/C2Y=; b=b05LWaykITq8D9dk57WJC79Tv /2P6EPfb3jFCeGnN1ODTqBOyrh8TEfMQSg7KJKcY8XMBhl8kz5mNqwXzj7ncw0f/mnw0NvTMzqPR0 9R6O1f6Slp14QB3W8uD07Y3fTRrht2AeOyNz+VWqy+F8eGeaG+LaQ2RFfoOun/NsrCsS2h1juOpi9 Y7HOIILv+66KDvlH6SJHf+iOVGPODKxEj9GFlfS0W6N0yw4qpwuWwXm0wF6L/sl2aFjXIGZ6yk+TZ YGB2pK0YXHVGme7qolC0tEDF3LupsaKQLqbcfTrxU3RzyOUgCutDA7hkY1vZpNVMm7GpdUizovZ64 XQZDr0OSQ==;
Received: from [::1] (port=59116 helo=server217.web-hosting.com) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1flJ4b-0013yH-Dr; Thu, 02 Aug 2018 15:15:45 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_2e9c64a992a9c5db1ef42e1eb68679c9"
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 12:15:45 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, int-area <int-area@ietf.org>, intarea-chairs@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <62804AFB-A3A9-45E5-8EEB-EF46CB37AB0D@employees.org>
References: <F227637E-B12D-45AA-AD69-74C947409012@ericsson.com> <0466770D-C8CA-49BB-AC10-5805CFDFB165@strayalpha.com> <6EDF0F79-C8F3-4F05-8442-FF55576ADDD0@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1807271530280.14354@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CALx6S35LthDLRry7k-pF8KSoX4BXBA8kyArOpDUAcJMDCoLQpQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1807280811540.14354@uplift.swm.pp.se> <8640DCF6-A525-4CF7-A89D-2DEDBF0FADC8@strayalpha.com> <FFF1C23B-7A24-46BC-929E-DD56C77D69A2@employees.org> <A248CA44-B568-4CB9-B450-067B1845AF9B@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S36w=5J0-=JQqrX0_PR7254V0HrhJct7oomPKdxSOSU43w@mail.gmail.com> <2872BF43-20AA-4179-9269-9C4FE6F5986B@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S35VidDr1uTGCHeb3Dcc0qF3O8Lz0vvV-XKPfbY057n6XA@mail.gmail.com> <cd34a1e8da6ff4bbf5b20875827d2a09@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S348jLsnHG3gp-mh9d4KJ1bROT3OcVz=XjwVgpv1aSsi_w@mail.gmail.com> <c271e9501b381c9be6ac1f3a0095a1d9@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S35DRCEjS5qaVkj2_FJzNumrkSfCZmoSJLueqqZs+pm9gw@mail.gmail.com> <240E40E2-81F9-4FAB-A271-825BD7AC6073@strayalpha.com> <96 EB5285-E0F6-43BB-A6CE-B087A4F8DF62@employees.org> <CALx6S36Ef3t7Axmx9hg994DHpVM=NdW-7ygf89E==gL4XKrkQg@mail.gmail.com> <5E21B3C1-0420-404C-9824-9B7E5A850BC5@employees.org> <CALx6S34qmKngi3hK_PVrJA1DMa5kfaLww3jfqRKN=up5v0Y0Ww@mail.gmail.com> <8D23C8B1-C2DA-4A8B-A2BE-8CCF6233B3A5@strayalpha.com> <D1D5EDCE-7C43-4CD8-947C-AA43CDB18892@employees.org> <1B04E207-08FA-400F-BBED-67379FEFD64E@strayalpha.com> <62804AFB-A3A9-45E5-8EEB-EF46CB37AB0D@employees.org>
Message-ID: <ea11591585f8efb373ec6c273e9f750e@strayalpha.com>
X-Sender: touch@strayalpha.com
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.3
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/GzMRgrq6395_CP0n9m9LtGo-06E>
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, 02 Aug 2018 19:15:48 -0000

On 2018-08-02 08:38, Ole Troan wrote:

> Joe, 
> 
>> I am not ignoring them; I'm claiming that they all have the same inherent deployment and implementation limitations.
>> 
>> Just because operators/vendors "want" to do otherwise does not make it possible.
> 
> There was IETF consensus behind those documents (A+P).

You mean the *experimental* RFCs that describe an approach that doesn't
update RFC791? (i.e., RFC6364?) Or something else? 

> In the _new_ IPv4 Internet architecture the IPv4 header looks like this: 
> 
> 0                   1                   2                   3 
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
> |.    0x45      |Type of Service|          Total Length         | 
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
> |         Identification        |Flags|      Fragment Offset    | 
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
> |  Time to Live |      6|17     |         Header Checksum       | 
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
> |                       Source Address                          | 
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
> |                    Destination Address                        | 
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
> |         Source Port           |     Destination Port          | 
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
> 
> If the the ascii art comes through.

A+P didn't update 791. There is no *new* IP header. 

The diagram above is a combination of IP - without options, notably -
and only two specific transports. It isn't an IPsec'd packet, a tunneled
packet, or any other transport. The Internet is not merely TCP and UDP
over IP with no options. 

> In contrast to NAT the address and port fields are not rewritten. Only used for forwarding.

And there may be limits to where that kind of approach can be deployed.
The jury is still out - this is experimental. 

Joe