Re: [Int-area] Comment on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-02

Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Wed, 13 February 2019 00:20 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
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 72C67126C01 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:20:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.299
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, GB_SUMOF=5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 q2KVevs9ao4P for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:20:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (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 E070B1200D8 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:20:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108159.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1D02F3w025464; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:20:36 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=jeCi2LcciyKEKSJbS/y37KV1/frx1fsUPF190FYa354=; b=ZeVePy+hU17PRm0mCcaYpfUZUIc06pn1DxAfbHlBo7tn/bjuL/vQ9dL9yFpcGXsIBF1t Vgmcj38l2FHnIJdmQys9+KUb7cKQYfqhHkZ4izduikFsZRuKCsH3CAIR7Y/ub7USLegg ZQOZmN8KZ0REWMF88GPEj5LVa1NGUaBXh2t7QUT+FHs4+l1VdAmxfA7BjEbPG/3pJ+PA OvkYHAGHtx1kBlYY9knzr2ayEns+ahVSPYShdtkzIB7wBEMnR2YmGolAY6hlFwGzxL+E m1xAA3gCThoghCf3HuQUKKS1vYQu8kuKRJG4XRNm3R+kFrjxGcWZCKeCnFS5TlWh6e/N 6A==
Received: from nam03-co1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03lp2050.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.40.50]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qm25p8mm5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:20:36 -0800
Received: from BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (20.176.252.26) by BYAPR05MB4631.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.233.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1622.9; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 00:20:34 +0000
Received: from BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::985d:4eee:89c2:a114]) by BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::985d:4eee:89c2:a114%2]) with mapi id 15.20.1622.016; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 00:20:34 +0000
From: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: "ek@loon.co" <ek@loon.co>
CC: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] Comment on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-02
Thread-Index: AdR7jX8WbBGp5KJcTVOO7JRn9uoYshHctuiAAAwHpYA=
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 00:20:34 +0000
Message-ID: <BYAPR05MB4245DEB8FB4910C361660A45AE660@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BYAPR05MB42453AB041957B3241F96207AEC20@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAAedzxr1Gz2yqHjMM56S4pv3T6PLygnHCuStSqyX6VWURAmX9w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAedzxr1Gz2yqHjMM56S4pv3T6PLygnHCuStSqyX6VWURAmX9w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.14]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: d55fa06a-b55e-4d62-cccc-08d691491234
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600110)(711020)(4605077)(4618075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR05MB4631;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR05MB4631:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1;BYAPR05MB4631;23: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
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR05MB4631E0AAAB74B815109991EEAE660@BYAPR05MB4631.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 094700CA91
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(366004)(39860400002)(136003)(396003)(376002)(346002)(189003)(199004)(13464003)(2501003)(256004)(68736007)(66066001)(478600001)(14444005)(2906002)(966005)(19627235002)(486006)(305945005)(229853002)(74316002)(3846002)(6116002)(14454004)(476003)(446003)(1730700003)(7736002)(8936002)(81156014)(8676002)(81166006)(86362001)(33656002)(6916009)(11346002)(9686003)(55016002)(6306002)(5640700003)(6436002)(7696005)(99286004)(53936002)(71200400001)(71190400001)(6246003)(97736004)(53546011)(6506007)(102836004)(76176011)(316002)(4326008)(25786009)(2351001)(26005)(106356001)(105586002)(186003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR05MB4631; H:BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 8bJxY7uhNQsaLS0JptX0xjrSUhRaqFRTHXXDs8LJZ2ZUfaBNUyMB9Q20ESM41gzvFHFXYUJ+WdxDfwzLN0h2O+ZYvnYnYugS87mH3TqiWlzRyTnYIeRiZgLnuuvriLzlitLJ7fK7bUh6mmDu40wIGurYOKmBKInR4QbBDJrNOijEtTWbWVjOztujew2qRbhXsYgTf/5rsByG6d2yXq8HrKSbIu/jW90zHjgYs2eeT35q4LEPMJpqAwOnVtty7JSScSGPaB2PbfDkrCoanUiVnxzVtVlYZgBNF51qzMC8isRH5tQvYhogLfb72vmvHCAaHj4vDabgheDFEDoT2wTVoXxCfhWQwYljRNa0Jt5I4GsAYuyCHSWorrYc1s0Bp485GmwwmaU0G0WcUBf2NKbmA3V0iqK6OUHPzjCTgXWVgYk=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: d55fa06a-b55e-4d62-cccc-08d691491234
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Feb 2019 00:20:34.2093 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR05MB4631
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-02-12_13:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902120162
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/3joaOjsZ9g0Me9EJkbF1U3xyK5U>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Comment on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-02
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: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 00:20:39 -0000

Hi Eric,

Most network providers abide by the policy that you describe. If all of their interior links support an MTU of N, their access links support an MTU of N minus M, where M is the highest possible encapsulation overhead.

This guarantees that MTU issues never occur on interior links. However, MTU issues can occur on provider access links. So, we still need to think about mitigations, and whether fragmentation is an attractive mitigation.

                                Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Kline <ek@loon.co>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 1:26 PM
> To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Comment on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-02
> 
> I think in that case it's just ensuring the MTU given to the customer via their
> access link can be carried through their network without, or which a minimum
> of, fragmentation.
> 
> I finally found some text to which I was referred, in 3GPP TS 29.060
> (GTP) v15.2.0 section 13.2:
> 
>     All backbone links should have MTU values that exceeds the sum of the
> maximum value plus the size of the tunnel headers (IP header, UDP and GTP
> header) in order to avoid fragmentation in the backbone.
> 
> In this case the "fit for purpose" is clearly delineated as "carrying GTP traffic".
> 
> I'll have to think about better text that "fit for purpose".  Can we say that
> network operators who can characterize effectively the MTU requirements of
> traffic traversing their network should factor in whatever overhead their
> operational model requires so as to minimize, or preferably eliminate, the
> need for fragmentation.
> 
> Operators that can't characterize the MTU requirements of their customer
> traffic can decide if they're going to try or not, or care or not. :-)
> 
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 12:35, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Erik,
> >
> > Could you refine the recommendation a little bit? If an ISP were to ask,
> "What MTU is fit for my purpose?", how would we answer?
> >
> >                       Ron
> >
> >
> > > Ron,
> > >
> > > Related to this section, at the mic I was suggesting perhaps
> > > including some simple text recommending that network operators
> > > SHOULD take efforts to make sure the MTU(s) on their network(s) are
> > > "fit for purpose", i.e. sized to avoid fragmentation to the extent possible.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure yet how to better express that notion.  It seems
> > > obvious and anodyne, but it can be useful to have these things
> > > captured for reference by non-IETF documents.
> > *****************************
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Int-area mailing list
> > Int-area@ietf.org
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail
> > man_listinfo_int-2Darea&d=DwIBaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voD
> > TXcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-
> AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=emFLkzGIF-fQ7
> > S48Z8rD2NpAlgzoAvIzozz0t7qvL2I&s=xl1riR8LmiMwXl2df4Uy117M-
> mozqtV6eXJJl
> > rue5DI&e=