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

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

Joe,

> My model describes the rules under which translation devices can operate correctly and predictably in the Internet model.
> 
> There are only a few alternatives for devices not explained by either model:
> 	1- the Internet and my model are incomplete
> 		in that case, you’re welcome to provide one for the new device
> 	2- the Internet and/or my model are incorrect
> 		in that case, you’re welcome to explain why
> 	3- the device should be considered incorrect and itself corrected
> 
> Un-doing fragmentation at IP is an attempt to jump to a solution for #1 without explaining WHY, other than “we need to do this to fix the Internet to support these new devices”.
> 
> I don’t think we should break known models to adapt to devices whose behavior might never be correctly accommodated.
> 
>> Take A+P (RFC6346), and it's instantiations through e.g. MAP-E (RFC7597). That's essentially normal longest match forwarding on addresses and ports.
> 
> So? Any device that sources packets with addresses it owns IS an endpoint on the Internet. Nothing changes based on how it translates those devices to the private side.

Could you please read those documents and explain how A+P fits in your model?
Note an A+P router does not translate, it forwards based on address and port. And as a normal router those addresses (and ports) are not identifying interfaces on the router, but on some end-system further away.

Best regards,
Ole