Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Fri, 13 September 2019 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 CC3F112084A for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 07:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
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 HJMl9ejDU4r6 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 07:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (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 0D38C12088A for <int-area@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 07:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=mtW3UuVGNDlzRNJnh3vgAETbZZ1qZcPaBIj1k1t0z3g=; b=n5bxGVrtg8PS8/lYNPiudDviv iud03q/Zk1us+xvr9zcVQ1HWu38ZDaK0alzXhPD4Y03yqM1hFZpYhQu9Mt6wWODVGgDGDboCyBF1c Xz92TNlBQt2Q9eFSoR8TGYi0x+E/TI8xEno46ZU3kGTYRNnFHHp6YHB5BSIclFE1B7RDltG5OyTR4 L3Ui3HJMNC5LK75YjwX3PKHqlNy9kPKjfDBELrexBh7Z8h127dokkCtN0iUFiSfGc4VX2y5CNzGl7 VS9T80kUIQZEa0N9gJRJq7PxqoCBsq0zEkKdljJB4eQ9rFDR3O7SNeILPrwlFplBLp5bGS9LikcgC NsNry5e3Q==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:59469 helo=[192.168.1.10]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1i8mJN-000hfH-6F; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 10:12:38 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CE68F4EE-725F-4A6E-AD24-2DEA9BD873CD@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 07:12:32 -0700
Cc: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8CBBB75A-51B5-4594-B682-DE70E90D16E1@strayalpha.com>
References: <BYAPR05MB546399E5CB3DD6D87B9F3E2BAEB00@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <92ed853e0df9431481e6ce54152bf561@boeing.com> <0D884720-9551-4402-9A7B-76E36254F94E@employees.org> <CE68F4EE-725F-4A6E-AD24-2DEA9BD873CD@gmail.com>
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/jHWYcSMzGO31QRnQpOUGvcSt2Hw>
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: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:12:42 -0000

> On Sep 13, 2019, at 5:05 AM, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> And the link layer could include capabilities such as described in RFC 1990…

Wouldn’t this required:

a) stateful associations between all link endpoints

b) all links be 2-party only

c) intermediate devices be happy to handle fragments that might not have a transport header

I.e., how does this move the needle forward?

Joe

> 
>> On Sep 13, 2019, at 2:59 PM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Fred,
>> 
>>> Ron, it is just a drop in the bucket compared with the amount of discussion since
>>> "Fragmentation Considered Harmful (1987)". But, I think we now clearly see a
>>> case where  fragmentation is *required*.
>> 
>> Absolutely. As tunnels produce a new link-layer, that can (should) be a function of that link-layer.
>> Network layer fragmentation is not needed for that.
>> (For the purpose of making the point and to set future direction, ignoring existing IP tunnel mechanisms).
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Ole
>> _______________________________________________
>> Int-area mailing list
>> Int-area@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area