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

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Ole Troan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Tom,
>
>> How is this story going to be different for IPv6? How do we ensure that non-conformant implementation for IPv4 isn't just carried over so that fragmentation, alternative protocols, and extension headers are viable on the IPv6 Internet?
>
> I don’t think the IPv4 implementations are non-conformant.
> (With regards to the implications of A+P on the IPv4 architecture).
>
> For IPv6 one would fear that the same pressures that has led to IPv4 ossification applies.
> Well, what can we do? Apart from crypto, ensure that popular applications use the features, so they cannot be shut down?
>
Ole,

That's the "use it or lose it" model of protocol features. TCP options
are firmly established as a required part of TCP protocol so there is
no way they could be obsoleted by external implemenation; IP options
on the other were never really required for IP operation so they are
considered expendable. The problem is that protocol features are often
defined before the application that would use them is built, so the
motivation to support all the features from the start isn't there.
This seems to be the case with extension headers, since only now does
there seem to be some serious proposals to use that functionality long
after the mechanism was first defined and IPv6 was deployed. In
reality, support of protocol features in the Internet is hardly ever
binary. Plain TCP/IPv4 packets are probably the only combination of
protocols that is guaranteed to work with probability approaching
100%, however pretty much anything else works with some varying of
probability greater than 0% but less than 100% (like EH success rates
in RFC7872). To that end, I am wondering if the idea of Happy Eyeballs
could somehow be generalized to work with these other "non-standard"
features.

Tom


> Cheers,
> Ole
>