IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06.txt

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Fri, 01 February 2019 15:47 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 F1FDB130E3F for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 07:47:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.219 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, 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 pWd0qOyDECgP for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 07:47:45 -0800 (PST)
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 9DEC8130E27 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 07:47:43 -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=Sg+R+aYlgOuSrr2du4UiDQaon2ocl7ZSPZ/qmkXfOOk=; b=YUYKlD6MfdPc/qpvirfQNKoxZ hMtZT20DzVPzIrcKYmFq9b5q6tOS4C5fI4NZWxsKl7naL90GmuQLN3S9/LFoOCbytnF2kgr5/qnyf fck9CyCB5qj1Ipf9O1hq7Hqa/q/9BLj57KWYfseaNAc5cZbO+FhxMbOITsFozUSdFN8XUt9xGEMuI dW6nViAWWgcAbLZbcZPQjH/g8a/Xf6XNfi9/PsG8z7yI6E+tgQ/RV5hANBpinE9JohX56E3enCuYf y7/GeyrYPVGFAlbs2Gt/fc3JjQ/Zvs3ojAtMep16g7iDn7DYk0sqksgvSGoSz2GLeBh+IQZQWfUMc IHs+RkTFA==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-240-132.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.240.132]:53612 helo=[192.168.1.77]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1gpb2X-000vch-7b; Fri, 01 Feb 2019 10:47:42 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6BCBAFB1-BB37-44CA-9EEF-6F90765B7002"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <65c1231056cf4eb68abb2d3af7b2ba5d@boeing.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2019 07:47:36 -0800
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, int-area <int-area@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <865F6518-B7E8-4A7A-AD53-C8E6AFC234EB@strayalpha.com>
References: <BYAPR05MB424584AA4D0D11D7D0098B81AE900@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CALx6S35-F_8L+QCcwN6--3TrrRdE5OG3vUACTEH03AmKYerLSw@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB4245604C8E234D72F42E0D8CAE910@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <10861CAC-3650-4B69-A8B0-437C2A3494CA@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S35XMV+7uXoGatsFEg7Bh+ueuHGVDZrXa8o4cSQKdON7iA@mail.gmail.com> <eb0cd9a4bd898310122ea77e0fade3f9@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S3708uQN2cey8ZDWUKsRR0KUH_uEPk6JwUu4eY4h0Op6xA@mail.gmail.com> <75e840b19c2e439ab3ff13d7c105ce8f@boeing.com> <CALx6S35tKRUDuMQmpiA7dVJV7D9ijXAWD-exGe7-3xZT-k9XVw@mail.gmail.com> <65c1231056cf4eb68abb2d3af7b2ba5d@boeing.com>
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
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/O_fiFf8kg8Szre5LX17WSDYHOdQ>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06.txt
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 01 Feb 2019 15:47:48 -0000


> On Feb 1, 2019, at 7:39 AM, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> 
>> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/ipaddr_frre/configuration/xe-3s/frre-xe-3s-book/virt-frag-reassembly.html <https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/ipaddr_frre/configuration/xe-3s/frre-xe-3s-book/virt-frag-reassembly.html>
>> is a little more interesting in that it provides a few more details.
>> In particular the requirement that all fragments must traverse the
>> same intermediate device is mentioned:
>> 
>> "The reassembly process requires all fragments within an IP datagram.
>> If fragments within an IP datagram are sent to different devices due
>> to load balancing VFR may fail and fragments may be dropped."
> 
> Yes, of course the fragments all need to go through the same destination where
> VFR is caching the fragments. 

This isn’t any different from the fact that middle boxes don’t react well to multipathing of IP packets that ignores flow info, e.g., when all packets of a TCP connection or UDP flow don’t go through the same middle box.

As per my other message, the per-packet processing load isn’t all that different EXCEPT to queue fragments before the first-frag is seen.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email