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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Fri, 27 July 2018 13:32 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 BCB2B130EA1; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 06:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 4mQpFKD6R7dN; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 06:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 90B8C130E76; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 06:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 5BF28AF; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 15:32:20 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1532698340; bh=0qc8sehObrYu1RiQULu8wdS8+04mpM74xonkeE75u8E=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=4Mnj480glyfF6NXrxI+7l81647bl58DSL0UW+Ch8BpYk6cP2yqBrAnt+3dwjidX2L Sy0XL0GwPEhH66jwDI7nINTHRhyKaWOKwM60smOEQOcesGOPZ0jrmJZr3smsPU3z+l iDElhGr6QZG6EQR/CVdv/biVX+y/izbbgJhhNjvQ=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 587F39F; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 15:32:20 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 15:32:20 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
cc: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, "internet-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, "intarea-chairs@ietf.org" <intarea-chairs@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <6EDF0F79-C8F3-4F05-8442-FF55576ADDD0@employees.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1807271530280.14354@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <F227637E-B12D-45AA-AD69-74C947409012@ericsson.com> <0466770D-C8CA-49BB-AC10-5805CFDFB165@strayalpha.com> <6EDF0F79-C8F3-4F05-8442-FF55576ADDD0@employees.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/Q7DOwjE0zSDrmeeebEsuGEYxaIo>
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: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 13:32:26 -0000

On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Ole Troan wrote:

> There's nothing intrinsic in tunnels that require network layer 
> fragmentation. The current IP in IP / GRE etc tunnel implementations do, 
> but in principle we could design tunnel fragmentation/reassembly above 
> the network layer.

This is what I do with OpenVPN for instance. I tell it to application 
layer fragment at ~1400 bytes, so the resulting packets always are 
significantly below 1500 bytes. So even as the inside of the tunnel is 
9000 MTU clean, it never results in IP fragments to be transported.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se