IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-area] IPv6 fragmentation for IPv4

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Tue, 23 May 2017 18:49 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 76AFD12E058 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 May 2017 11:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-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 jSYgZ05yqtgj for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 May 2017 11:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.179]) (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 2EE13127136 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 May 2017 11:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v4NIndgb052151; Tue, 23 May 2017 11:49:39 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.219]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v4NInTJw051947 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 23 May 2017 11:49:29 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:eede::8988:eede) by XCH15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdb::8988:efdb) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Tue, 23 May 2017 11:49:28 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) by XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Tue, 23 May 2017 11:49:28 -0700
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: IPv6 fragmentation for IPv4
Thread-Index: AdLT3WVYMdiisvTeTLyu7THIVnRQuAAS8QEAAA0n34A=
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 18:49:28 +0000
Message-ID: <82ea9cb1ddec4c159fd4b4bdea90be41@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <da864471c7b648eea3d9d93029209660@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <e62dc1c0-c209-f834-c52c-9b8879048d86@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <e62dc1c0-c209-f834-c52c-9b8879048d86@isi.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/e1ThnHvQtEXjEV94kcOvgfBYhsY>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv6 fragmentation for IPv4
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 23 May 2017 18:49:42 -0000

Hi Joe,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch@isi.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 11:01 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 fragmentation for IPv4
> 
> Hi, Fred (et al.),
> 
> On 5/23/2017 9:17 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> > Joe, I wanted to run an idea by you. We all know that IPv4 fragmentation has
> > problems because of the 16-bit ID field. So, why not insert an IPv6 Fragment
> > Header between the IPv4 header and the upper layer protocol data, then
> > use IPv6-style fragmentation instead of IPv4 fragmentation?
> 
> IPv4 fragmentation has several impediments:
>     - small ID field
>     - lack of a reassembly checksum
>     - lack of a fixed-location flow ID
> 
> Using IPv6-Frag as the next header solves only the first of these. The
> last is significant - putting a new header would defeat IPv4 flow ECMP
> even for the first fragment.

ECMP gateways could be updated to look at the ULP headers
following the IPv6 Frag header in the first fragment.

> IPv6 includes a flow field that serves this
> purpose.

How does it work for plain-old IPv4 fragmentation? I would think
that ECMP gateways would look at the IP ID and try to associate
the fragments so they all get equal ECMP treatment, i.e., the
same as for vanilla IPv4.

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email