Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile
"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Thu, 12 September 2019 13:31 UTC
Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 6198B12007C for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 06:31:16 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 CJnmfNXGUhCx for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 06:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.163]) (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 26792120041 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 06:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id x8CDVAB7020143; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:31:11 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-07.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-07.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.109]) by clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id x8CDV1rb019636 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:31:01 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-07.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.109) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 06:31:00 -0700
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5%2]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 06:31:00 -0700
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
CC: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile
Thread-Index: AQHVZ9vC+0+swfDmzUGVsRG7ePSlRacl+uEAgACTH5CAAQC9AIAABCcAgAB53vA=
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:31:00 +0000
Message-ID: <dfea6fa2742344729e54f575d74810a8@boeing.com>
References: <efabc7c9f72c4cd9a31f56de24669640@boeing.com> <CAHw9_iKozCAC+8TGS0fSxVZ_3pJW7rnhoKy=Y3AxLqWEXvemcA@mail.gmail.com> <4C8FE1C4-0054-4DA1-BC6E-EBBE78695F1B@gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB5463F112A3FFA8CE6378F3D3AEBB0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <ab0d5600-d71c-9f0b-2955-64074e040bc6@strayalpha.com> <E770BEF0-D901-4CD0-96E6-C626B560DCD6@gmail.com> <163CD364-2975-467A-8925-F114FFD9C422@employees.org> <E00B6159-2771-42D8-B5E8-7750E0B828DE@strayalpha.com> <3764D860-BC6F-441A-86EF-59E1742D7654@employees.org> <939AFA6F-4C75-4532-82DE-77D14ABC41ED@strayalpha.com> <5C51DCDC-4031-47D9-A28E-812D0E66EE35@employees.org> <5DAA16CC-791E-4042-95F6-65DA58D23EB8@gmail.com> <EA3B45A1-FFD2-49A5-B577-602065632F41@strayalpha.com> <5d22dd34-3972-060e-ddc1-b7f27a110a69@si6networks.com> <14f06217149d40ba8a41865ebb08ee08@boeing.com> <91894E0E-09D3-42E4-B6C4-88AE4493D796@apnic.net> <2f6ad3ad143d44588059f083a9e1835c@boeing.com> <C7AE8A6E-2451-4D08-9D77-6E69DECA4165@gmail.com> <b9b6ca03-69c6-1e5d-bbc4-70ce16d3a252@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <b9b6ca03-69c6-1e5d-bbc4-70ce16d3a252@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: 5E55418160BE0EFDD7CFC2564449570582FDBE6E80A900615236E1D48848E5222000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/cQtJx6itCatchoUayNyyt5wVJLA>
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: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:31:17 -0000
Brian, > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 4:14 PM > To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>; Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> > Cc: int-area@ietf.org; Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com> > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile > > On 12-Sep-19 10:59, Bob Hinden wrote: > > Fred, > > > >> On Sep 11, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote: > >> > >> Geoff, the 1280 MTU came from Steve Deering's November 13, 1997 proposal to > >> the ipngwg. The exact message from the ipng archives is reproduced below. > >> > >> 1280 isn't just a recommendation - it's *the law*. Any link that cannot do 1280 > >> (tunnels included) is not an IPv6 link. > > > > Yes from IPv6’s view, but you can make a link that can’t do 1280 work if it has its own local L2 fragmentation / reassembly as noted in > Steve’s email. ATM with is 53 byte cells comes to mind. > > IPv4 with a small PMTU also comes to mind, as discussed in Section 3.2.2 of RFC 4213: > > In this case, the IPv6 layer has to "see" a link > layer with an MTU of 1280 bytes and the encapsulator has to use IPv4 > fragmentation in order to forward the 1280 byte IPv6 packets. Yes, IP fragmentation - exactly. Fred > Brian > > > > > Bob > > > > > >> > >> Fred > >> > >> --- > >> From owner-ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com Thu Nov 13 16:41:01 1997 > >> Received: (from majordomo@localhost) > >> by sunroof.eng.sun.com (8.8.8+Sun.Beta.0/8.8.8) id QAA14339 > >> for ipng-dist; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:38:00 -0800 (PST) > >> Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (engmail1 [129.146.1.13]) > >> by sunroof.eng.sun.com (8.8.8+Sun.Beta.0/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA14332 > >> for <ipng@sunroof>; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:37:51 -0800 (PST) > >> Received: from saturn.sun.com (saturn.EBay.Sun.COM [129.150.69.2]) > >> by Eng.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-5.3) with SMTP id QAA28654 > >> for <ipng@sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM>; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:37:48 -0800 > >> Received: from postoffice.cisco.com (postoffice.cisco.com [171.69.200.88]) > >> by saturn.sun.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA28706 > >> for <ipng@sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM>; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:37:49 -0800 (PST) > >> Received: from [171.69.199.124] (deering-mac.cisco.com [171.69.199.124]) by postoffice.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP > id QAA20862; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:37:48 -0800 (PST) > >> X-Sender: deering@postoffice.cisco.com > >> Message-Id: <v03110702b0598e80008d@[171.69.199.124]> > >> Mime-Version: 1.0 > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:37:00 -0800 > >> To: IPng Working Group <ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com> > >> From: Steve Deering <deering@cisco.com> > >> Subject: (IPng 4802) increasing the IPv6 minimum MTU > >> Cc: hinden@ipsilon.com > >> Sender: owner-ipng@eng.sun.com > >> Precedence: bulk > >> > >> In the ipngwg meeting in Munich, I proposed increasing the IPv6 minimum MTU > >> from 576 bytes to something closer to the Ethernet MTU of 1500 bytes, (i.e., > >> 1500 minus room for a couple layers of encapsulating headers, so that min- > >> MTU-size packets that are tunneled across 1500-byte-MTU paths won't be > >> subject to fragmentation/reassembly on ingress/egress from the tunnels, > >> in most cases). > >> > >> After the short discussion in the Munich meeting, I called for a show of > >> hands, and of those who raised their hands (about half the attendees, if > >> I recall correctly), the vast majority were in favor of this change -- > >> there were only two or three people opposed. However, we recognized that > >> a fundamental change of this nature requires thoughtful discussion and > >> analysis on the mailing list, to allow those who were not at the meeting > >> and those who were there but who have since had second thoughts, to express > >> their opinions. A couple of people have already, in private conversation, > >> raised some concerns that were not identified in the discussion at the > >> meeting, which I report below. We would like to get this issue settled as > >> soon as possible, since this is the only thing holding up the publication > >> of the updated Proposed Standard IPv6 spec (the version we expect to advance > >> to Draft Standard), so let's see if we can come to a decision before the ID > >> deadline at the end of next week (hoping there isn't any conflict between > >> "thoughtful analysis" and "let's decide quickly" :-). > >> > >> The reason I would like to increase the minimum MTU is that there are some > >> applications for which Path MTU Discovery just won't work very well, and > >> which will therefore limit themselves to sending packets no larger than > >> the minimum MTU. Increasing the minimum MTU would improve the bandwidth > >> efficiency, i.e., reduce the header overhead (ratio of header bytes to > >> payload bytes), for those applications. Some examples of such applications > >> are: > >> > >> (1) Large-fanout, high-volume multicast apps, such as multicast video > >> ("Internet TV"), multicast netnews, and multicast software > >> distribution. I believe these applications will end up limiting > >> themselves to packets no large than the min MTU in order to avoid > >> the danger of incurring an "implosion" of ICMP Packet-Too-Big > >> messages in response. Even though we have specified that router > >> implementations must carefully rate-limit the emission of ICMP > >> error messages, I am nervous about how well this will work in > >> practice, especially once there is a lot of high-speed, bulk > >> multicasting happening. An appropriate choice of rate or > >> probability of emission of Packet-Too-Big responses to multicasts > >> really depends on the fan-out of the multicast trees and the MTUs of > >> all the branches in that tree, which is unknown and unknowable to > >> the routers. Being sensibly conservative by choosing a very low > >> rate could, in many cases, significantly increase the delay before > >> the multicast source learns the right MTU for the tree and, hence, > >> before receivers on smaller-MTU branches can start receiving the > >> data. > >> > >> (2) DNS servers, or other similar apps that have the requirement of > >> sending a small amount of data (a few packets at most) to a very > >> large and transient set of clients. Such servers often reside on > >> links, such as Ethernet, that have an MTU bigger than the links on > >> which many of their clients may reside, such as dial-up links. If > >> those servers were to send many reply messages of the size of their > >> own links (as required by PMTU Discovery), they could incur very > >> many ICMP packet-too-big messages and consequent retransmissions of > >> the replies -- in the worse case, multiplying the total bandwidth > >> consumption (and delivery delay) by 2 or 3 times that of the > >> alternative approach of just using the min MTU always. Furthermore, > >> the use of PMTU Discovery could result in such servers filling up > >> lots of memory withed cached PMTU information that will never be > >> used again (at least, not before it gets garbage-collected). > >> > >> The number I propose for the new minimum MTU is 1280 bytes (1024 + 256, > >> as compared to the classic 576 value which is 512 + 64). That would > >> leave generous room for encapsulating/tunnel headers within the Ethernet > >> MTU of 1500, e.g., enough for two layers of secure tunneling including > >> both ESP and AUTH headers. > >> > >> For medium-to-high speed links, this change would reduce the IPv6 header > >> overhead for min MTU packets from 7% to 3% (a little less than the IPv4 > >> header overhead for 576-byte IPv4 packets). For low-speed links such as > >> analog dial-up or low-speed wireless, I assume that header compression will > >> be employed, which compresses out the IPv6 header completely, so the IPv6 > >> header overhead on such links is effectively zero in any case. > >> > >> Here is a list of *disadvantages* to increasing the IPv6 minimum MTU that > >> have been raised, either publically or privately: > >> > >> (1) This change would require the specification of link-specific > >> fragmentation and reassembly protocols for those link-layers > >> that can support 576-byte packets but not 1280-byte packets, > >> e.g., AppleTalk. I think such a protocol could be very simple, > >> and I briefly sketch such a protocol in Appendix I of this > >> message, as an example. > >> > >> Often, those links that have a small native MTU are also the ones > >> that have low bandwidth. On low-bandwidth links, it is often > >> desirable to locally fragment and reassemble IPv6 packets anyway > >> (even 576-byte ones) in order to avoid having small, interactive > >> packets (e.g., keystrokes, character echoes, or voice samples) > >> be delayed excessively behind bigger packets (e.g., file transfers); > >> the small packets can be interleaved with the fragments of the > >> big packets. Someone mentioned in the meeting in Munich that the > >> ISSLL WG was working on a PPP-specific fragmentation and > >> reassembly protocol for precisely this reason, so maybe the job > >> of specifying such a protocol is already being taken care of. > >> > >> (2) Someone raised the concern that, if we make the minimum MTU close > >> to Ethernet size, implementors might never bother to implement PMTU > >> Discovery. That would be regrettable, especially if the Internet > >> evolves to much more widespread use of links with MTUs bigger > >> than Ethernet's, since IPv6 would then fail to take advantage of > >> the bandwidth efficiencies possible on larger MTU paths. > >> > >> (3) Peter Curran pointed out to me that using a larger minimum MTU for > >> IPv6 may result in much greater reliance on *IPv4* fragmentation and > >> reassembly during the transition phase while much of the IPv6 > >> traffic is being tunneled over IPv4. This could incur unfortunate > >> performance penalties for tunneled IPv6 traffic (disasterous > >> penalties if there is non-negligible loss of IPv4 fragments). > >> I have included Peter's message, describing his concern in more > >> detail, in Appendix II of this message. > >> > >> (4) Someone expressed the opinion that the requirement for link-layer > >> fragmentation and reassembly of IPv6 over low-cost, low-MTU links > >> like Firewire, would doom the potential use of IPv6 in cheap > >> consumer devices in which minimizing code size is important -- > >> implementors of cheap Firewire devices would choose IPv4 instead, > >> since it would not need a fragmenting "shim" layer. This may well > >> be true, though I suspect the code required for local frag/reasm > >> would be negligible compared to the code required for Neighbor > >> Discovery. > >> > >> Personally, I am not convinced by the above concerns that increasing the > >> minimum MTU would be a mistake, but I'd like to hear what the rest of the > >> WG thinks. Are there other problems that anyone can think of? As I > >> mentioned earlier, the clear consensus of the Munich attendees was to > >> increase the minimum MTU, so we need to find out if these newly-identified > >> problems are enough to swing the consensus in the other direction. Your > >> feedback is heartily requested. > >> > >> Steve > >> > >> ---------- > >> > >> Appendix I > >> > >> Here is a sketch of a fragmentation and reassembly protocol (call it FRP) > >> to be employed between the IP layer and the link layer of a link with native > >> (or configured) MTU less than 1280 bytes. > >> > >> Identify a Block Size, B, which is the lesser of (a) the native MTU of the > >> link or (b) a value related to the bandwidth of the link, chosen to bound > >> the latency that one block can impose on a subsequent block. For example, > >> to stay within a latency of 200 ms on a 9600 bps link, choose a block size > >> of .2 * 9600 = 2400 bits = 240 bytes. > >> > >> IPv6 packets of length <= B are transmitted directly on the link. > >> IPv6 packets of length > B are fragmented into blocks of size B > >> (the last block possibly being shorter than B), and those fragments > >> are transmitted on the link with an FRP header containing the following > >> fields: > >> > >> [packet ID, block number, end flag] > >> > >> where: > >> > >> packet ID is the same for all fragments of the same packet, > >> and is incremented for each new fragmented packet. The size of > >> the packet ID field limits how many packets can be in flight or > >> interleaved on the link at any one time. > >> > >> block number identifies the blocks within a packet, starting at > >> block zero. The block number field must be large enough to > >> identify 1280/B blocks. > >> > >> end flag is a one-bit flag which is used to mark the last block > >> of a packet. > >> > >> For example, on a 9600 bps serial link, one might use a block size of > >> 240 bytes and an 8-bit FRP header of the following format: > >> > >> 4-bit packet ID, which allows interleaving of up to 16 packets. > >> 3-bit block number, to identify blocks numbered 0 through 5. > >> 1-bit end flag. > >> > >> On a 256 kpbs AppleTalk link, one might use the AppleTalk-imposed block > >> size of ~580 bytes and an 8-bit FRP header of the following format: > >> > >> 5-bit packet ID, which allows for up to 32 fragmented packets in > >> flight from each source across the AppleTalk internet. > >> 2-bit block number, to identify blocks numbered 0 through 2. > >> 1-bit end flag. > >> > >> On a multi-access link, like AppleTalk, the receiver uses the link-level > >> source address as well as the packet ID to identify blocks belonging to > >> the same packet. > >> > >> If a receiver fails to receive all of the blocks of a packet by the time > >> the packet number wraps around, it discards the incompletely-reassembled > >> packet. Taking this approach, no timers should be needed at the receiver > >> to detect fragment loss. We expect the transport layer (e.g., TCP) checksum > >> at the final IPv6 destination to detect mis-assembly that might be caused by > >> extreme misordering/delay during transit across the link. > >> > >> On links on which IPv6 header compression is being used, compression is > >> performed before fragmentation, and reassembly is done before decompression. > >> > >> ---------- > >> > >> Appendix II > >> > >> From: Peter Curran <peter@gate.ticl.co.uk> > >> Subject: Re: IPv6 MTU issue > >> To: deering@cisco.com (Steve Deering) > >> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:50:34 +0100 (BST) > >> > >> Steve > >> > >> My problem was that moving the MTU close to 1500 would have an adverse > >> effect on the transition strategy. The current strategy assumes that the > >> typical Internet MTU is >576, and that sending an IPv6 packet close to the > >> minimum MTU will not require any IPv4 fragmentation to support the tunnel > >> transparently. The PMTU discovery mechanism will 'tune' IPv6 to use a > >> suitable MTU. > >> > >> If the IPv4 MTU is <= 576 then IPv4 fragmentation will be required to > >> provide a tunnel with a minimum MTU of 576 for IPv6. This clearly places > >> a significant strain on the tunnelling nodes - as these will normally be > >> routers then there will be a demand for memory (for reassembly buffers) > >> as well as CPU (for the frag/reassembly process) that will have an overall > >> impact on performance. > >> > >> This is an acceptable risk, as Internet MTU's of <= 576 are not too common. > >> > >> However, if the minimum MTU of IPv6 is increased to something of the order > >> of 1200-1500 octets then the likelihood of finding an IPv4 path with an > >> MTU lower than this value increases (I think significantly) and this will > >> have a performance impact on these devices. > >> > >> During the brief discussion of this matter in the IPNG session at Munich > >> you stated that MTU's less than 1500 where rare. I don't agree with this > >> completely - it seems to be pretty common practise for smaller 2nd and 3rd > >> tier ISP's in the UK to use an MTU of 576 for connection to their transit > >> provider. Their objective, I believe, is to 'normalize' the packet sizes > >> on relatively low bandwidth circuits (typically <1Mbps) to provide better > >> performance for interactive sessions compared to bulk-file transfer users. > >> > >> I think that before we go ahead and make a decision on an increased minimum > >> MTU for IPv6 then we should discuss the issues a little more. > >> > >> Incidentally, I am not convinced of the benefits of doing this anyway > >> (ignoring the issue raised above). With a properly setup stack the PMTU > >> discovery mechanism seems to be able to select a good MTU for use on the > >> path - at least that is my experience on our test network and the 6Bone. > >> > >> I appreciate that you are trying to address the issues of PMTU for multi- > >> casting but I don't see how raising the minumum MTU is going to help much. > >> PMTU discovery will still be required irrespective of the minimum MTU > >> adopted, unless we adopt a value that can be used on all link-layer technolo- > >> gies. > >> > >> I would welcome wider discussion of these issues before pressing ahead > >> with a change. > >> > >> Best regards > >> > >> Peter Curran > >> TICL > >> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > >> IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > >> FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > >> Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Int-area mailing list > > Int-area@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > >
- [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-… Alissa Cooper via Datatracker
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Ole Troan
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Black, David
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Ole Troan
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Ole Troan
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fred Baker
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fred Baker
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Warren Kumari
- [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joel Halpern
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Warren Kumari
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Ole Troan
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Ole Troan
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Ole Troan
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Ole Troan
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Ole Troan
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Fred Baker
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Geoff Huston
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Ole Troan
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Fred Baker
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in dr… Fred Baker