IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-area] Comment on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-02

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Tue, 13 November 2018 20:41 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 3016C130E2D for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 12:41:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.989
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.989 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, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham 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 WZjBEmoZnIDw for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 12:41:54 -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 C41B4130E17 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 12:41:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc: To:From:Date:Content-Type:MIME-Version: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=lvXYxjoxxp20wHWh0fqhjCDn+NNV4OFBCdeBTarfTn0=; b=HcRAXNqKYNWOMCVnECm8qCmUl DajjGC40oOvSJ9zoWSB4AjBixzvVkTmM419rINGpg5bHL2mrFiGlNaYN44r6TtMtRTY2DCSUD/ETk GAs7Z/KNZU8YztwvKzUQeIa9jwvLucQ84lbmbnT/4ntH5hlnqq/JqVMo46QI31P3yvz6R01Xl18Lk GpzseJBJPsAvpiuhOcWT34jZx1qfIbiiXfmORsLieSIZwRO5+Bh3ft5mF6Ih2Hz8Ki5YNswAvs1pv yy/cHZ0TOtr0vRLv5IhL1pnZQ8CcY73VtAbriOaNdQh61cXq2VD99410Mw/QjbjTiHAqiLrtKskbU 0qOpME4ag==;
Received: from [::1] (port=49168 helo=server217.web-hosting.com) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1gMfVR-001EzZ-87; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 15:41:54 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_6ebfe944b30605fa780224181f9479b2"
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 12:41:53 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
To: ek@loon.co
Cc: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAAedzxpHUOVURKhDV-j9CDDAAkPJTFaX8XEmHPh3+ODgTcMfhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BYAPR05MB4245CFB9117EF11735EE1F91AEC10@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAAedzxpHUOVURKhDV-j9CDDAAkPJTFaX8XEmHPh3+ODgTcMfhA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c9e66a39b87ecc8b5c5369f968359ce5@strayalpha.com>
X-Sender: touch@strayalpha.com
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.3
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5
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/XDRTknXe2FKoXT4mwA5bp4hOAaI>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Comment on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-02
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, 13 Nov 2018 20:42:02 -0000

The problem is that the MTU of an IPv6 overlay is defined as 1280 and
cannot be reduced "to make it work". Nor can the MTU of the underlying
IPv6 be increased to help. 

Joe

On 2018-11-13 11:36, Erik Kline wrote:

> Ron,
> 
> Related to this section, at the mic I was suggesting perhaps including
> some simple text recommending that network operators SHOULD take
> efforts to make sure the MTU(s) on their network(s) are "fit for
> purpose", i.e. sized to avoid fragmentation to the extent possible.
> 
> I'm not sure yet how to better express that notion.  It seems obvious
> and anodyne, but it can be useful to have these things captured for
> reference by non-IETF documents.
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 at 09:18, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote: 
> Jen,
> 
> This is a good idea. I will add it to the next draft version.
> 
> Ron
> 
> recommends that operators do not filter ICMPv6 PTB. I believe it would be
> beneficial to make an explicit recommendation to permit fragmented packets
> to/from operator's DNS servers.
> I apologia if it's been discussed before and rejected (I did not find such
> discussion on the list).
> 
> **********************************
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email