Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Wed, 01 August 2018 15:22 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 02018130E37; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 08:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 PsRYJpQ1DSG9; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 08:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from accordion.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 937F2130E13; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 08:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.10.187] (30.51-175-112.customer.lyse.net [51.175.112.30]) (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 74B122D4F9B; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 15:22:09 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15G77)
In-Reply-To: <8D23C8B1-C2DA-4A8B-A2BE-8CCF6233B3A5@strayalpha.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 17:22:04 +0200
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, int-area <int-area@ietf.org>, intarea-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D1D5EDCE-7C43-4CD8-947C-AA43CDB18892@employees.org>
References: <F227637E-B12D-45AA-AD69-74C947409012@ericsson.com> <0466770D-C8CA-49BB-AC10-5805CFDFB165@strayalpha.com> <6EDF0F79-C8F3-4F05-8442-FF55576ADDD0@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1807271530280.14354@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CALx6S35LthDLRry7k-pF8KSoX4BXBA8kyArOpDUAcJMDCoLQpQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1807280811540.14354@uplift.swm.pp.se> <8640DCF6-A525-4CF7-A89D-2DEDBF0FADC8@strayalpha.com> <FFF1C23B-7A24-46BC-929E-DD56C77D69A2@employees.org> <A248CA44-B568-4CB9-B450-067B1845AF9B@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S36w=5J0-=JQqrX0_PR7254V0HrhJct7oomPKdxSOSU43w@mail.gmail.com> <2872BF43-20AA-4179-9269-9C4FE6F5986B@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S35VidDr1uTGCHeb3Dcc0qF3O8Lz0vvV-XKPfbY057n6XA@mail.gmail.com> <cd34a1e8da6ff4bbf5b20875827d2a09@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S348jLsnHG3gp-mh9d4KJ1bROT3OcVz=XjwVgpv1aSsi_w@mail.gmail.com> <c271e9501b381c9be6ac1f3a0095a1d9@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S35DRCEjS5qaVkj2_FJzNumrkSfCZmoSJLueqqZs+pm9gw@mail.gmail.com> <240E40E2-81F9-4FAB-A271-825BD7AC6073@strayalpha.com> <96 EB5285-E0F6-43BB-A6CE-B087A4F8DF62@employees.org> <CALx6S36Ef3t7Axmx9hg994DHpVM=NdW-7ygf89E==gL4XKrkQg@mail.gmail.com> <5E21B3C1-0420-404C-9824-9B7E5A850BC5@employees.org> <CALx6S34qmKngi3hK_PVrJA1DMa5kfaLww3jfqRKN=up5v0Y0Ww@mail.gmail.com> <8D23C8B1-C2DA-4A8B-A2BE-8CCF6233B3A5@strayalpha.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/lU_41zEOObqPCyv2Ce9wByTz1TE>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile
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: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 15:22:13 -0000

But only if you continue to ignore that there are other IPv4 sharing mechanisms than NAT. 

Ole

> On 1 Aug 2018, at 16:11, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
> 
> We all understand that many current NAT devices and their deployments are not compatible with IP fragmentation (v4 or v6).
> 
> That leaves us with two options:
>    1. change IP, but that leaves us with problems for which we have no solution (encrypted payloads, other DPI devices that look further in, etc.)
>    2. change NATs and how they’re deployed (to require reassembly or its equivalent before processing, to not be deployed except where they can act as the host they proxy for)
> 
> Both cost money and will have an impact.
> 
> #2 involves changing less devices AND has the benefit that we know it will work.
> 
> I see no good reason to continue to try #1 in the meantime.
> 
> Joe