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

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2018, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>> So you want us to redesign the Internet to run over port 443.
>
>
> Nope.
>
>> The again, IP has fragmentation. That too is reality, even if we don’t
>> like it.
>
>
> IP have lots of things. Hop-by-hop-headers for instance. Really bad idea.
>
Mikael,

Definition of hop-by-hop options might have been flawed in that they
were required to be processed by every node in the path. But with that
restriction relaxed, this now is the only feasible mechanism that
provides inband host to network or network to host signaling. IMO,
this is far better idea than all the approaches that have being do ad
hoc DPI into transport layers or even transport payload. Fortunately
this is one area that might progress. QUIC seems to have enough
traction and encrypts header to render DPI ineffective. If the QUIC
application wants to tell something to the network it can do that by
HBH (this is a premise of FAST).

>> Again, something broken needs fixing. You can chase the symptoms forever
>> or you can deal with the cause. It’s simply not tenable to ‘fix’ the
>> internet to accommodate broken devices.
>
>
> The thing here is that you haven't proposed a realistic way to deal with the
> problem. We do not have any enforcement mechanism.
>
> Applications need to work when faced with adverse conditions. They can work
> less well, that's fine, but they still need to work.
>
This leads to driving everything down to only support the least common
denominator. Problem is that we can never move things forward if
everyone is bound to LCD.

Tom

>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>