Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Tue, 03 September 2019 21:34 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.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 1C8F61208E2 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 14:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 2-hv3T3FCU8j for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 14:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x535.google.com (mail-ed1-x535.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::535]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14D56120154 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 14:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x535.google.com with SMTP id y91so8256193ede.9 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 14:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pgLkxipe3zu9FxB8SOjiSW66tPIr9WWswSGG+avz6Tc=; b=qHgxfv4tuh2x/ZjOv+iSg33N0Hp4ZL8Wg6mom98GcLNfv21YoIsR2ZTTGXRwMM+UUp bQhYg504U1EOzw0cb9jW1H3V8lCzBmKOlu8PXKrwAxBC4bdT7q+W7YMhrJrTxlo1RDLV 6BxuBYtg/eXJqVlhszpBjpzqZ6q/hmXQIWgD17IOeB+Q+ErNO8UldZGEF7h5H6M+YFpI 38d17hnSQMri7C/PClO66WsoYlKwhgVzMRypXsLnQ0QjZNHAUf7dpvqJy+BMLapmt8d/ R3PARMibjSJ+XP7Unpo9IPaUi9r50gG9g+QtP6gBCrEAdePeuWFx6MLhhUBhHndctixS mUwA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pgLkxipe3zu9FxB8SOjiSW66tPIr9WWswSGG+avz6Tc=; b=jwMgpMHxEUnscD+Yx0M+IQ2SDRdXq8705UdjJMPOKV7WsGm+XuT7R4jJ52ZxYktuVW wEAaRcxpf+daWXMo6Vmu8tw6xCgFKpA8mNZw63ozNtGsJCHwMt9s+HbBWRIL9yDRgdJY WpOWO4b2vKWamCCMfRj7kRUhyfa61+AvTA5kaJPJf1DmbePWR+TqGI+VWgTJf7nSp355 R+KW+ZFj+wPxO6ab+0gOZ1kODzgrj7tx9hrTAD+A1riUqFFp/mj2qJpIKhVLOVGZY1ro 9GX5bi4Ej+tzN0inbsmk+Cez3+3KEtLG7JfNcZUYaoFxLB842VOlCN7YY5hiWor/9j2p 8IbA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUeTgR6CgJ3dHN7utRjOoNqp0cLk1WzoJu8v6i1HfBTAJDTEtw1 +aQ6JTRK4FW9dYLZNk5UwWb0pWOBvNqfO1n5rKZUmQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyWu8H8XBv5JUeoCCep0ji3USnzCFxyxcM/vf4BAwyqXmCWAK/UjJ2kESj+w8Vmw5nRNeaZCHHOQsiYZNefvjg=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:c353:: with SMTP id j19mr39005782edr.292.1567546466552; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 14:34:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156751558566.9632.10416223948753711891.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <B7C5DF29-92B2-477B-9C30-F47E338038EE@strayalpha.com> <efabc7c9f72c4cd9a31f56de24669640@boeing.com> <9331E721-F7F8-4C22-9BE4-E266726B3702@gmail.com> <7bfbaf5fa12c4a9bac3e46ece5dfdcde@boeing.com> <0BF34BFA-5F30-4EE1-9F5E-18D9ECA8D424@gmail.com> <CALx6S37xhhS5ezhJu6-HQmftwY9cBzuCxeaW9thTbKBa2hizcw@mail.gmail.com> <4219167a-9375-ec11-95f1-5de8890acf1d@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <4219167a-9375-ec11-95f1-5de8890acf1d@si6networks.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 14:34:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S37Erj9zbsCmtd4N39Ng03NN173U57ZXYXj8-E7JiAMs+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org>, "intarea-chairs@ietf.org" <intarea-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/qv114ZNaeObysuGfhZ-KJ1DYm08>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)
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: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 21:34:45 -0000

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 1:49 PM Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/9/19 23:33, Tom Herbert wrote:
> > Bob,
> >
> > I agree with Fred. Note, the very first line of the introduction:
> >
> > "Operational experience [Kent] [Huston] [RFC7872] reveals that IP
> > fragmentation introduces fragility to Internet communication".
> >
> > This attempts to frame fragmentation as being generally fragile with
> > supporting references. However, there was much discussion on the list
> > about operational experience that demonstrates fragmentation is not
> > fragile.
>
> Discussion is not measurements. Do you have measurements that suggest
> otherwise?
>
> We did separate measurements, with different methodologies, and they
> suggest the same thing. You can discuss as much as you want. But that
> will not make fragmentation work.
>
>
>
> > In particular, we know that fragmentation with tunnels is
> > productively deployed and has been for quite some time. So that is the
> > counter argument to the general statement that fragmentation is
> > fragile. With the text about tunneling included in the introduction I
> > believe that was sufficient balance of the arguments, but without the
> > text the reader could be led to believe that fragmentation is fragile
> > for everyone all the time which is simply not true and would be
> > misleading.
>
> "fragile" means that it fails in an uncceptably large number of cases.
> ~30 failure rate is not acceptable. ~20% isn't, either.
>
Okay, so then the definition of a fragile protocol is one that has a
failure rate greater than 20%? If so, then that should really be
stated in the draft. But, then I'd point out that per
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, IPv6 is only
supported by 30% of the Internet at best, so it fails 70% of the time.
So by that same definition, isn't IPv6 fragile?

Tom

> >
>
>
>
> > But the "problem" of fragmentation is in intermediate devices that
> > don't properly handle it as the draft highlights. So it seems like
> > part of addressing the problem should also be to fix the problem! That
> > is implementations should be fixed to deal with fragmentation.
>
> The same logic would solve the problem of widespread famine, and others.
> I don't think that logic has solved any real problems in the real world.
>
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>
>
>
>