IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Sun, 26 August 2018 22:53 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 C3005130E03; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 15:53:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.989
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham 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 r0XjrzZYqqp4; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 15:53:50 -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 18AB2130DD5; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 15:53:50 -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:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: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=TuEXIlu3uAGMi5n/CO3T/0ObVgomkPEidOw3c6JP994=; b=np+WX63LRxqeg9xPmtwXZP4Ek 0+GXatX+oqlvhJ7WlREujqQi7KL6eDrlk9YO50QzjSmYZIEq61dtenJiv3gmOLaHhCT09mH4yMs71 7qKJH8M+5u13ijgE+dIgA6BdDOEkFrVGjGyIJAryUwYv+GEgvPdXMmzkWy7RhuLasZianEKrbQRGy e6Y+4SMMIEHr+7MfIvDKmCtCZKOqB1Efw8jZ8u9JqlHLE8A8657ztFr2m4tzxXVj/izPAGEEbi4hW KNFJDfQ+I0Z+XfXEByz9KtbYezzBB8jxZYc3nN2NpG7PiFNGFf/AtecDzTdOsTp1aZKTj9FhYrvzM HSCti0P4A==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-240-132.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.240.132]:60876 helo=[192.168.1.77]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1fu3um-002enW-2D; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 18:53:48 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F6684E37-AB81-4E52-8160-17140E9EC255"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180826220322.vsf6usscprhmdhyh@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 15:53:46 -0700
Cc: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, int-area <int-area@ietf.org>, intarea-chairs@ietf.org
Message-Id: <E0A343E8-67CD-4FEE-9ED4-67B1636235B1@strayalpha.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1808021749020.19688@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CALx6S35kw2dodgG2L3LE3A5y8RYEXy6izQWgrQTwg7-yPqpzOg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1808030857370.19688@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20180825032457.ol5rlrr7h2kqi6px@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CALx6S35-n_ROEZv0NReVEWTUhnyc25SNJb5DaeqtnxPAPk6QjQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAF493D3-37A2-4A89-BA88-81567E5B88F1@huitema.net> <538A6193-2BD7-4E72-BD28-736B81F97B33@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S34uKA9XYP8Mguw1bf+nby_NXWA1GQk88C+Dmtw56ZxF8g@mail.gmail.com> <0E93CA77-907B-4EBE-BC13-27BFF78AD25C@strayalpha.com> <A9F9EFD0-D246-4883-8462-0074280559A9@employees.org> <20180826220322.vsf6usscprhmdhyh@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
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/oCWHKirq_4kYT06DYDno39zBj_U>
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: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 22:53:52 -0000


> On Aug 26, 2018, at 3:03 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 11:26:47PM +0200, Ole Troan wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 26 Aug 2018, at 23:12, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> As I???ve mentioned, there are rules under which a NAT is a valid Internet device, but it is simply not just a router.
>> 
>> If there really was, can you point to where those rules are? Describing the behavior of the host stack and applications?
> 
> "A NAT is a transport layer circuit proxy whose network stack owns
> outside adresses on the inside and inside addresses on the outside.”

My definitions:
NAT: viewed as a router or link to devices on the private side, but a host on the public side [RFC3022]

Proxy: viewed as different hosts on each side [Sh86]

Transparent proxy: viewed, together with the source, as a single host to the sink but invisible to the source on both sides; these are sometimes called “performance-enhancing proxies” (PEP) [RFC3135] 

> Something like that. Very likely not explicitly defined that way given
> how BEHAVE just developed pragmatically whats necessary to make
> things work and AFAIK wa prudent enough not to have the architectural
> argument .

IMO, the different types of middleboxes can be defined in terms of the combinations of behaviors of existing defined network architecture components (see above).

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email