Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-00.txt

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Thu, 16 August 2018 12:47 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 277A51292AD for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 05:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 G_7FN7JVq2GE for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 05:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from accordion.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82D45126DBF for <int-area@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 05:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [173.38.220.62]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by accordion.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 20FA12D4FAA; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 12:47:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89E934028EF; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 14:47:30 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <2BB8A510-DEA7-4543-9FF4-6D82D5ADBA53@strayalpha.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 14:47:30 +0200
Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, int-area@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <66DE41F9-32D7-45F2-AADB-37DD19A5F5A5@employees.org>
References: <153434872145.14477.17942361917248825531@ietfa.amsl.com> <2c82b61e-8017-742e-764b-559f2ec4bd37@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1808160735400.19688@uplift.swm.pp.se> <AE241D6E-2379-4EFB-802C-BFBC840273E7@employees.org> <2BB8A510-DEA7-4543-9FF4-6D82D5ADBA53@strayalpha.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/e7HqtxFN-Z7RBMcJo1X3yLxkcOk>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-00.txt
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: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 12:47:37 -0000

Joe,

>> IPv4 fragments do have a higher drop probability than other packets. Just from the fact that multiple end-users are sharing a 16 bit identifier space.
> 
> It’s really the fact that NATs that process fragments don’t reassemble before translating and/or don’t rate limit fragments they generate as already required by 791 (as explained in 6884).

That’s incorrect.
See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7597#section-8.3.3

> A NAT that is broken isn’t helping users share addresses. It’s just broken.

I wish it was that simple.

Cheers,
Ole