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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Sun, 29 July 2018 06:25 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 792AB130E08 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Jul 2018 23:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 K5bohA_2QQtP for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Jul 2018 23:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (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 244A6130E2D for <int-area@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Jul 2018 23:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id B9AB5AF; Sun, 29 Jul 2018 08:24:59 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1532845499; bh=Hfyo5gIolVNatN9xluJkRUrl/TnpsoqDPc+y0sKxXUA=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=u550QxEfnEleUU5bT1OGSgKdU2ojymUIxXGtXwOefYjx7bTD3Z+z8Ds3onQ5pdQct 8y9gMYm/uZYxcVIhHAuwx8E8bGI8J0X7PfMC0bPxkkfi5DMkbU30fHS4TAKhRbaLVC 0QwcftPQxo4Su1RKK8yR1UDu1QA9uUVNVBOIhBH0=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3EA09F; Sun, 29 Jul 2018 08:24:59 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 08:24:59 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
cc: "internet-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <8640DCF6-A525-4CF7-A89D-2DEDBF0FADC8@strayalpha.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1807290822250.14354@uplift.swm.pp.se>
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>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="-137064504-518883242-1532845499=:14354"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/qnUHcmWpwvykgYfVA2aXuCj5Xl8>
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, 29 Jul 2018 06:25:05 -0000

On Sat, 28 Jul 2018, Joe Touch wrote:

> because DPI and NAT devices don’t reassemble. And they don’t because 
> it’s cheaper to sell devices that say they run at 1 Gbps (e.g.) that 
> don’t bother to reassemble.

Keeping lots of state is always more expensive than not keeping state, and 
customers like lower cost devices.

> So pushing this to another layer will never solve it. What will solve it 
> will only be a compliance requirement for #6 - which could be done right 
> now, and has to be done for ANY solution to work.

Where is that Internet Protocol Police when you need it? I appreciate your 
struggle, but I don't see how you will succeed in your struggle, in 
reality.

So I prefer to recommend not to rely on IP level fragmentation, and 
fragment at higher layers. It works better in reality.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se