Re: [Int-area] Comments on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Wed, 30 January 2019 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@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 9FD13128CF2 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 06:17:47 -0800 (PST)
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 S7XS_HXzp7To for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 06:17:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32a.google.com (mail-wm1-x32a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32a]) (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 7EAAF130E2F for <int-area@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 06:17:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id m22so21892898wml.3 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 06:17:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=7L5UlfpR3Fy1Ygge+bZMkSjgAOBcOZsAdV4Gh3FVPfA=; b=ntaj9hF4fVh4Z4KTBvNsed5ExPlu8xIzZcCAajmN+qUVpTkslvfgHeh6TDr+xwI3OC TPSvHHwZgewqgMMK3wW1DWw+kBwGWgx1f0CpGxsmyFCMycdvTSMJV3qSTZU6+T1McBkl 7m8mwLR5C0vxD3eGHe8/c6lsktnx7Zvc5KBeVC3syGBfakNWyYFhFxKbJbqIhIZkEF9Z JxFFDSroJtuhLwRlvu8KNsCwNB5luoGGGLgVFaEMUnLCXWQBJyJCCBRn5mYbq5hmaTxN nUBkJ098Guzg97gcwhiQIqqz3dHBJe4wEk0S/ypjIU8oeaaMn9fj466LiZ3gUsFeSYgp SPsg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=7L5UlfpR3Fy1Ygge+bZMkSjgAOBcOZsAdV4Gh3FVPfA=; b=Bcb4sNtL/MihCZZgpiCq1VAE2urLeYP196/GBh18nvlYIwRXolx3dRrFBQhVmGxX4D VNyIOMF9HYsIogg7hgI+1Xm1FcHPqn0oEYKfNv6PAQ5Xm8t0Lk2ZjCy/B5DXUKRg01sP sZXyDcefE6HDdWSOp7L9oZcvC6zOBQdptfPcgvHjBW42TxCJEdbNZQgTLqn8afs7i4CY qFqi4zNfncj7fAuxOx3oPNHwUns1D43was8obcXIlhyfOCz98eHyCZsJ7BqRhcGjQPm0 HqytAgL3FMebuvihsrBUZfVdY+4L6QQB0rVk8nn3QAk89Y/bQSlIRnsLYtg+zdrXZ0/v Jr0g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukcrT6LQNJD3g3yy/qvm/C3ak8wh15I3QXZkOC29R3BFb0jJK01h UD+Cn8FM12xXv6Y6MGIBPQavWGo3
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN5rHihb9NgknNRfHPGzdtRDIuPtZlH3QCJL+gEU+2TnuQWLQWkGuRrywinq/XlJlLTesZTJXw==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:9c0a:: with SMTP id f10mr26194618wme.73.1548857863707; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 06:17:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.198] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 141sm3332713wmb.5.2019.01.30.06.17.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Jan 2019 06:17:43 -0800 (PST)
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: int-area <int-area@ietf.org>
References: <CALx6S35kwvHL5iE4Ci10LQbPzun3k1C-T4m5B55yAyL+nP4sdQ@mail.gmail.com> <3B29EAA5-5989-4A8F-857B-3DEF63A7FEA7@gmail.com> <CALx6S35JNTS3KGyv5iJHv65KAmJube==d-aQs6a-uPv9W57VkA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4afecee1-0d1a-93a3-6041-a115651c773c@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 14:17:42 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S35JNTS3KGyv5iJHv65KAmJube==d-aQs6a-uPv9W57VkA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/QWzPKM7R17uCmmn1WmsWy56H_Xg>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Comments on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06
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: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 14:17:47 -0000

> That's true for IPv4,the only way to do stateless ECMP and have
> fragments follow the same path as non-fragments is to hash over the IP
> addresses only.

There is not enough entropy in that.

I remember the original ECMP studies, and if the designers could have 
got away with just SA/DA/Prot they would have. In those days we were 
using s/w forwarders and the ECMP "feature" cost headline PPS which in 
those days was the key metric.


> For IPv6 we can do better. The flow label allows finer
> grained per-flow routing, but still only requires inspection of IP
> header so keeping fragments in order just works.

If you can trust it.

- Stewart