Re: [Int-area] IPv6 fragmentation for IPv4

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Tue, 23 May 2017 22:45 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.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 775DA1273B1 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 May 2017 15:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 JXeT9c4OfIev for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 May 2017 15:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22e.google.com (mail-qt0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5E5B12704B for <int-area@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 May 2017 15:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id t26so141337999qtg.0 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 May 2017 15:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=tnINa0TDt9zm4Ac/AM5cfC0M/T4wNOSzMW3/CbQmTSE=; b=tr0GvQKfqnvujYaCjxWZ21BU3FgAeYzRXCh8losB8GHwBB2K6v/1RkOlGIOFc8Z88U j0UVxQbZykI+PT3Fbm91i3g2b+dXK6mU2NtIbj6jChLmyEbiY7bFL36jw7nmHXtj37Bv i8gGNsa/z1H6VSKpMRnsFnshRuXMVg53qBJiqiwbVRnRRLCpasajibusFNFCnExk9K/0 fZ3ge7Q+Lc2d3ATLOh0PnDZblovQtH5fKgf1+5QPvuWrRE6WIwX2VaVyGiY0z5jfl/6O x6KcepX0dhlCd8KbtDNv4l2Pdb+26I+H4f4/p4BXhs5yatsSAeOoVfYBjGmrAm172wjV cIjw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=tnINa0TDt9zm4Ac/AM5cfC0M/T4wNOSzMW3/CbQmTSE=; b=lXrjBI+MZK8ANTypbhzV77WvXZpO5jGar29kijiWNVIxpd8gW3oxGn0un5Fn7jGtmn wqsyNY1oSzW+gzRm70dx0ahWADzv8ttJA19DH+gzKL9JkbURqKKXXPw5hzgPODtIjvn4 2+yHXJRMAB01aU79HwuYBKDxD4MpiUkyRo8521HbxEq8qc/z8k5qZvpfd5IFGyXYmQ/M haYyX1JmLxeoQUeFHG9h70oUM3G2hSp8gNyp4PzinA6hyUYToqFMdq+SMK2NPLiZP4N8 nE8oNrrdIvFC7ywbqE2lMYTES+Hr9TEdexhfUCLLd9IwcTCPBWhZPfJ76cugEs6KYVL6 XfwA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcBZLmFUu0E9++pwaVrk3oKHd5p2aYCSreCmGX+DnEx7suSY9vgP 9jaA+JG7SvQLwg==
X-Received: by 10.200.54.199 with SMTP id b7mr32148520qtc.145.1495579515089; Tue, 23 May 2017 15:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.224.219] ([209.97.127.34]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o13sm1424348qke.30.2017.05.23.15.45.13 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 May 2017 15:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <E6EADA08-9631-408E-95F1-9F18EAACA139@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AC4E9A2C-36D3-44C3-9177-4CDC4823BA2C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 15:45:10 -0700
In-Reply-To: <ff8b0c6e-2444-ee1d-1b01-d834cf56df18@isi.edu>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>, "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
References: <da864471c7b648eea3d9d93029209660@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <e62dc1c0-c209-f834-c52c-9b8879048d86@isi.edu> <82ea9cb1ddec4c159fd4b4bdea90be41@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <1e04c4fdef5249ec816638aaf0584422@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <7b58e6e2-8f58-0f80-494c-11053257759c@isi.edu> <d17df7228aae4360a7b517ebd8dfae42@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ff8b0c6e-2444-ee1d-1b01-d834cf56df18@isi.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/K7iLeYmI80XdRWcJ-dr1iFe_4LE>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv6 fragmentation for IPv4
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 23 May 2017 22:45:17 -0000

> 
>> 
>>> Finally, how do you know when you can even use this? Legacy devices
>>> could choke on such packets - whether routers or endpoints.
>> That is a real concern, yes. For the same reason that new transports
>> like SCTP and DCCP have been proven difficult to deploy. With this
>> proposal, ip-proto-44 would be just another protocol that middleboxes
>> block. But, maybe it would work in private internetworks such as
>> an enterprise network.

Upgrading enterprise networks isn’t so easy these days.  They have many different kinds of devices (some owned by the enterprise, some BYOD) each with different software.  It’s one thing to push out an application, changing the IP stack is difficult.

> IMO, if you've gotten to the point of upgrading a system to speak a new
> variant of IPv4, it ought to be IPv6.

+1

Especially, since most devices have IPv6 already.

Bob