IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Sun, 26 August 2018 22:03 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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 0426A130E03; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 15:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 4uBBLwkzxfk1; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 15:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A73D130E17; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 15:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5448548328; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 00:03:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id A23C1440054; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 00:03:22 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 00:03:22 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, int-area <int-area@ietf.org>, intarea-chairs@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180826220322.vsf6usscprhmdhyh@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1808021749020.19688@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CALx6S35kw2dodgG2L3LE3A5y8RYEXy6izQWgrQTwg7-yPqpzOg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1808030857370.19688@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20180825032457.ol5rlrr7h2kqi6px@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CALx6S35-n_ROEZv0NReVEWTUhnyc25SNJb5DaeqtnxPAPk6QjQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAF493D3-37A2-4A89-BA88-81567E5B88F1@huitema.net> <538A6193-2BD7-4E72-BD28-736B81F97B33@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S34uKA9XYP8Mguw1bf+nby_NXWA1GQk88C+Dmtw56ZxF8g@mail.gmail.com> <0E93CA77-907B-4EBE-BC13-27BFF78AD25C@strayalpha.com> <A9F9EFD0-D246-4883-8462-0074280559A9@employees.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <A9F9EFD0-D246-4883-8462-0074280559A9@employees.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/Ys00oz7YPpIiMn122Kjxy03lpZs>
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: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 22:03:29 -0000

On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 11:26:47PM +0200, Ole Troan wrote:
> 
> 
> > On 26 Aug 2018, at 23:12, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
> > 
> > As I???ve mentioned, there are rules under which a NAT is a valid Internet device, but it is simply not just a router.
> 
> If there really was, can you point to where those rules are? Describing the behavior of the host stack and applications?

"A NAT is a transport layer circuit proxy whose network stack owns
outside adresses on the inside and inside addresses on the outside."

Something like that. Very likely not explicitly defined that way given
how BEHAVE just developed pragmatically whats necessary to make
things work and AFAIK wa prudent enough not to have the architectural
argument .

> Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email