IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05.txt

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Sat, 02 June 2012 01:12 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 5AD0811E8095 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.574
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PDSDvppG1o1d for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from darkstar.isi.edu (darkstar.isi.edu [128.9.128.127]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D634511E8094 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by darkstar.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q521BaL8000626 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4FC96848.5090502@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:11:36 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
References: <20120530184618.6000.74469.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FC66DFA.3010300@isi.edu> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65D3742B6D8@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4FC6A602.4050507@isi.edu> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65D3742B703@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4FC6B9A1.4060409@isi.edu> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65D3742B90B@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4FC7A337.70406@isi.edu> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65D3742B9EF@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4FC7B0E8.5020306@isi.edu> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65D3742BAA0@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4FC7D5BD.4010001@isi.edu> <CAE_dhjt62cH0EE_moyH0PPePkG2eOae6dfAF_QVtKW6mAHskaw@mail.gmail.com> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65D3742BC32@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65D374A7DCF@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65D374A7DCF@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05.txt
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 01:12:07 -0000

FWIW, that solution works for me.

Joe

On 6/1/2012 8:59 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> Below I'll give an alternative which should make the
> MSL issue go away:
>
...
> In draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update Section 1, where it
> says:
>
>    "In IPv4, the Identification (ID) field is a 16-bit value that is
>     unique for every datagram for a given source address, destination
>     address, and protocol, such that it does not repeat within the
>     Maximum Segment Lifetime (MSL) [RFC791][RFC1122]."
>
> simply delete the citation of [RFC791] and do not replace
> it with anything. The text from RFC1122 (cited above) gives
> sufficient explanation of MSL and where it came from.
>
> Replacing MSL with "maximum datagram lifetime" would be
> incorrect. Per RFC791, maximum datagram lifetime is told
> by the TTL which can be at maximum 255 - not 120.
>
> Fred
> fred.l.templin@boeing.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email