Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Fri, 06 September 2019 01:18 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 A5FED120043; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 18:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 I3D9Oziw8-Ht; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 18:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
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 F278E120071; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 18:18:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender :Reply-To: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=eCfn1bnfQgFdn7ebR8crV+73DFRO9glWFSDZCecn1FQ=; b=lB2fo5ZGmquRvRKj/FFUNvedrR tTrcMP63/fKt2In6GejBsqegCPt6ti1hGgGcGn6xQhFKz/UBg1VdlouOZaxuJHEg53vACZnziWZvs ALcpO2aaiehxdQBv9nCs/fDgY1CdKCvjlZ8RpFKyC4Cx2bEU/gtybZIeioeSOmzIeCua5hw4Ewrm4 RBGNhQqFH+TdpE7x+/yfZpV66y9fhuVyiKBBQEnMrOA9GTKhIhrzrwDJCBio45Tx3JiYZJZksEnqo /ndDWA0Tc3U3ZHVUE2qoSOuRddaVR/T0+L6KBhpmMMH28uib9is4w7kxdSg09ZQf51+5WL96MtKj1 qZIfY/Aw==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:50341 helo=[192.168.1.12]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1i62tS-002HA5-Lu; Thu, 05 Sep 2019 21:18:36 -0400
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>, "intarea-chairs@ietf.org" <intarea-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <efabc7c9f72c4cd9a31f56de24669640@boeing.com> <2EB90A57-9BBD-417C-AEDB-AFBFBB906956@gmail.com> <CAHw9_iKozCAC+8TGS0fSxVZ_3pJW7rnhoKy=Y3AxLqWEXvemcA@mail.gmail.com> <4C8FE1C4-0054-4DA1-BC6E-EBBE78695F1B@gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB5463F112A3FFA8CE6378F3D3AEBB0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Message-ID: <ab0d5600-d71c-9f0b-2955-64074e040bc6@strayalpha.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 18:18:28 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR05MB5463F112A3FFA8CE6378F3D3AEBB0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
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/ZoeMjHNdyrPAxmohoAglVZaAmrw>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile
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: Fri, 06 Sep 2019 01:18:39 -0000

Although this is close, it misses the mark a little on the issue that
the app may not actually have any control here - or know how or when to
reduce its MTU. That might be a minor point to add, but is worth adding.
This isn't just an app layer issue.

Joe

On 9/5/2019 4:45 PM, Ron Bonica wrote:
> Bob,
>
> I think that this is a close to consensus as we are going to get.
>
>                                            Ron
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> 
> Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 2:29 PM
> To: int-area@ietf.org
> Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>om>; Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>in>; IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>om>; draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org; intarea-chairs@ietf.org; Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>
> Subject: Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile
>
> Hi,
>
> Based on the discussion, I would like to propose to see if this will resolve the issues raised.   It attempts to cover the issues raised.
>
> The full section 6.1 is included below, but only the last sentence in the second paragraph changed.
>
> Please review and comment.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob
>
>
>
> 6.1.  For Application and Protocol Developers
>
>    Developers SHOULD NOT develop new protocols or applications that rely
>    on IP fragmentation.  When a new protocol or application is deployed
>    in an environment that does not fully support IP fragmentation, it
>    SHOULD operate correctly, either in its default configuration or in a
>    specified alternative configuration.
>
>    While there may be controlled environments where IP fragmentation
>    works reliably, this is a deployment issue and can not be known to
>    someone developing a new protocol or application.  It is not
>    recommended that new protocols or applications be developed that rely
>    on IP fragmentation.  Protocols and applications that rely on IP
>    fragmentation will work less reliably on the Internet unless they
>    also include mechanisms to detect that IP fragmentation isn't working
>    reliably.
>
>    Legacy protocols that depend upon IP fragmentation SHOULD be updated
>    to break that dependency.  However, in some cases, there may be no
>    viable alternative to IP fragmentation (e.g., IPSEC tunnel mode, IP-
>    in-IP encapsulation).  In these cases, the protocol will continue to
>    rely on IP fragmentation but should only be used in environments
>    where IP fragmentation is known to be supported.
>
>    Protocols may be able to avoid IP fragmentation by using a
>    sufficiently small MTU (e.g.  The protocol minimum link MTU),
>    disabling IP fragmentation, and ensuring that the transport protocol
>    in use adapts its segment size to the MTU.  Other protocols may
>    deploy a sufficiently reliable PMTU discovery mechanism
>    (e.g.,PLMPTUD).
>
>    UDP applications SHOULD abide by the recommendations stated in
>    Section 3.2 of [RFC8085].
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area