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

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018, 5:28 AM Ole Troan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Joe,
>
> >> The need for fragmentation cannot be completely
> >> eliminated and we do need it to work. Devices that do things to
> >> prevent correct operation still need to be fixed, and it would be
> >> productive for the draft to include statements on how some of the
> >> sub-problems problems can be fixed (like using flow label for ECMP
> >> instead of ports).
> >
> > On that we agree. That’s my key concern - how to do this in a way that
> doesn’t effectively kill off IP fragmentation for the rest of us.
>
> For IPv4 it’s an unfortunate side-effect of the fact that we are out of
> IPv4 addresses. As we continue to increase the ratio of users per IPv4
> address, IPv4 fragmentation, or any protocol that isn’t TCP or UDP are not
> going to work well in the public IPv4 Internet.
> IPv4 Internet Architecture is evolving as a consequence of address
> run-out. I think we’ve pretty much explored the solution space for IPv4
> sharing mechanisms, so I think you just have to accept this new and
> unimproved (sic) IPv4 Internet architecture.
>

Ole,

How is this story going to be different for IPv6? How do we ensure that
non-conformant implementation for IPv4 isn't just carried over so that
fragmentation, alternative protocols, and extension headers are viable on
the IPv6 Internet?

Tom


> Cheers,
> Ole