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

Toerless Eckert <> Sat, 25 August 2018 03:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FE39130E0E; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 20:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0-FZlsX9DM8J; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 20:25:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1873F130EBC; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 20:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47E8658C4BB; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 05:24:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 3C2B94402CB; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 05:24:57 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 05:24:57 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <>
Cc: Tom Herbert <>, int-area <>,
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 03:25:04 -0000

On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 09:48:25AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> I've kept saying "Networks must support ip fragmentation properly.

Why ? Wheren't you also saying that you've got (like probably many
else on this thread) all the experience that only TCP MSS gets you
working connectivity in many case (like hotels) ?

IMHO, we (network layer) should accept defeat on network layer 
fragmentation and agree that we should make it easier for the
transport layer to resolve the problem.

Aka: I would lvoe to see a new ICMPv4/ICMPv6 reply and/or PTB reply option
indicating "Fragmented Packets Not Permitted". Any network device which
for whatever reason does not like Fragemnts would simply drop
fragmented packets and send this as a reply. Allows then the
transport layer to automatically use packetization  (such as TCP MSS) 
to get packets through. 

Of course. Will take a decade to get ubiquitously deployed, but
neither IPv4 nor IPv6 will go away, only the problems with fragmentation
will become worse and work if we do not have an exit strategy like this.

If we don't try an exit strategy like this, we will just get what
Joe said, the complete segmentation of the Internet with more and
more L4 or even higher layer proxies.

Btw: +1 for adopting the doc as a WG item, but primarily because everything
before section 7 is on a way to become a good read of reality. Section
7 recommendations is only a faith based exercise (praying) as long as it tries to
get the job done primarily by appealing to application developers.