Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Tue, 03 September 2019 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.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 2978912006B for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 ZnLi7N-FBTAG for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52d.google.com (mail-ed1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52d]) (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 2FCAB120013 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id c19so5167121edy.10 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 09:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fqoUYvZM0g4dPX897W2dlsujimef8FKTwBLKO2rJT8s=; b=swIHlhAj8ZJl9Vfm30b+drKm/0p5ewwsOPRBdnwfkuqp3dp4elzt+fe5ha9dobi7Nz aCmqQeoNv9hj28P/kLquLM8HprqpfwjsN0/2R1fxhFByNYjff3WMvA3Vfb0lkhcVrYwi o3a/P8g5KcQOd1RS6E4G+pKaaBe1UrOXpAvNBjEsusfRU5DGjYMC/QGMm2aYgkHHBPXh Md9v5aiLHnNEoHcoCDbu+oVEaLEsPvsgySP8uCsfQBscVtBVN3hw6DcOLIOcHsp7c4fe AxPClX6FtenVdISe3GnFvs1G5TFaCatj1GvHGM0KFngQ2FDu1N+udj+lXjRogaujuaQv 6u9g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fqoUYvZM0g4dPX897W2dlsujimef8FKTwBLKO2rJT8s=; b=XnVpMxpvEIDfgyuicw84SUjh3X3Y80CZHuNu5NfuJeEXc3rnXPEi0zUw/7O2Q9kSGI EqLUrgN/qQ3l65A4kq16fKXNUl5DO/j7XLlKnyvfMwN2b8RgLoPv33k4LCGq032QcZN0 sKBmnXE9at1TUSaos8bT5bkbYL5oNpt50wk23KCRtTSnbx6htN3wrPqzAf/zWeGpeJhM wMLKSWwQknRfPsVRfzbCgHUZa0i6Dnji9eYGGMk10KaUxoDHS1+kHOIDjtfL9SZk++y5 v9u4iWoDt6nUmYpyBHcRPXr5zcJReoGGYLhbuegKDECFJZPKSMlGuLXuKm7PmqJFBRxP XtRQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWGLa7dBFbRR2Wt2P8jH1ZZWHJuRQoWzHS1xGtIqj0ofZecEbv3 T62+SXkO7MzKAi02WQCW6kCfvpVdyLmtyJZDpj3PHg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzXYyUGMX46s6iAYZAbES1pWV7VjDEXgrwDzsELIFoqL8RalnbnmP1Gm6aduacwJSxrLaUgPNQE6fhlMOPk420=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:d14c:: with SMTP id br12mr29558307ejb.244.1567526847534; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 09:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156751558566.9632.10416223948753711891.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <B7C5DF29-92B2-477B-9C30-F47E338038EE@strayalpha.com> <efabc7c9f72c4cd9a31f56de24669640@boeing.com> <bc1c4352-ad40-4b89-5178-c55f4f2ba115@si6networks.com> <54a25f71a620476396bdd1f8d7ced565@boeing.com> <de24bc8c-1812-c8a8-45cc-1c82454f5db9@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <de24bc8c-1812-c8a8-45cc-1c82454f5db9@si6networks.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:07:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S37JoGbxzYAUdNUVgNgtUWKFPZahb+KBM4+EHj5eNuECrg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Cc: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "intarea-chairs@ietf.org" <intarea-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ec6e000591a848d3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/Wu4_Cu6p-f3DfjqNvo-L4DcEaWE>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)
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: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 16:07:32 -0000

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019, 8:58 AM Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:

> On 3/9/19 18:41, Templin (US), Fred L wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fgont@si6networks.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 7:50 AM
> >> To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>om>; Joe Touch <
> touch@strayalpha.com>gt;; Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
> >> Cc: Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>om>;
> draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org; The IESG <
> iesg@ietf.org>gt;;
> >> intarea-chairs@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)
> >>
> >> On 3/9/19 17:33, Templin (US), Fred L wrote:
> >>> Why was this section taken out:
> >>>
> >>>> 1.1.  IP-in-IP Tunnels
> >>>>
> >>>>    This document acknowledges that in some cases, packets must be
> >>>>    fragmented within IP-in-IP tunnels [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels].
> >>>>    Therefore, this document makes no additional recommendations
> >>>>    regarding IP-in-IP tunnels.
> >>>
> >>> Tunnels always inflate the size of packets to the point that they may
> exceed
> >>> the path MTU even if the original packet is no larger than the path
> MTU. And,
> >>> for IPv6 the only guarantee is 1280. Therefore, in order to robustly
> support
> >>> the minimum IPv6 MTU tunnels MUST employ fragmentation.
> >>
> >> Isn't that an oxymoron? If fragmentation is fragile, if you need
> >> something robust, you need to rely on something else....
> >
> > IPv6 fragmentation is not fragile - only IPv4 fragmentation is fragile.
>
> * RFC7872.
> * https://blog.apnic.net/2017/08/22/dealing-ipv6-fragmentation-dns/
>
> These seems pretty fragile to me. YMMV, though.
>

Fernando,

That's fragmentation in DNS, not tunneling which is what Fred's question is
about. Besides that, Fred's point is still correct-- fragmentation is not
fragile for IPv6, it's broken, non-conformant implementations that are
fragile.

Tom


> Thanks,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>