IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Meta-issues: On the deprecation of the fragmentation function

Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Wed, 10 July 2013 00:33 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A72921F9C72 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QDzctwSRNALQ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co9outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (co9ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com [207.46.163.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9678D21F9C6B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail76-co9-R.bigfish.com (10.236.132.242) by CO9EHSOBE027.bigfish.com (10.236.130.90) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 00:33:05 +0000
Received: from mail76-co9 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail76-co9-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5DC26045A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 00:33:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:66.129.224.50; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -26
X-BigFish: VPS-26(zzbb2dI98dI9371I148cI542I1432Izz1f42h1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1033IL8275dhz2fh2a8h683h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1de9h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail76-co9: domain of juniper.net designates 66.129.224.50 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.129.224.50; envelope-from=rbonica@juniper.net; helo=P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ; -HQ.jnpr.net ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: CIP:157.56.238.5; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BY2PRD0512HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT
Received: from mail76-co9 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail76-co9 (MessageSwitch) id 1373416383853275_3463; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 00:33:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CO9EHSMHS014.bigfish.com (unknown [10.236.132.229]) by mail76-co9.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C81B94017A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 00:33:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (66.129.224.50) by CO9EHSMHS014.bigfish.com (10.236.130.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 00:33:03 +0000
Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:33:03 -0700
Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:33:03 -0700
Received: from CO9EHSOBE027.bigfish.com (207.46.163.25) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:36:46 -0700
Received: from mail74-co9-R.bigfish.com (10.236.132.229) by CO9EHSOBE027.bigfish.com (10.236.130.90) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 00:33:01 +0000
Received: from mail74-co9 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail74-co9-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF81226047E for <ipv6@ietf.org.FOPE.CONNECTOR.OVERRIDE>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 00:33:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail74-co9 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail74-co9 (MessageSwitch) id 137341638020848_26126; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 00:33:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CO9EHSMHS003.bigfish.com (unknown [10.236.132.239]) by mail74-co9.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC34A4E007F; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 00:32:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BY2PRD0512HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.238.5) by CO9EHSMHS003.bigfish.com (10.236.130.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 00:33:00 +0000
Received: from BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.5.145]) by BY2PRD0512HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.243.37]) with mapi id 14.16.0329.000; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 00:32:58 +0000
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Subject: RE: Meta-issues: On the deprecation of the fragmentation function
Thread-Topic: Meta-issues: On the deprecation of the fragmentation function
Thread-Index: AQHOfLVoLtuD7p8LeE2Fhu/K5qJEnJlci/SAgAAN9ACAAAD+gIAACExQgAALN4CAAF6xUA==
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 00:32:58 +0000
Message-ID: <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2509FB8317@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <FAD482FE-4583-472A-8B57-E789A942686E@gmail.com> <1DF7BDE3-1490-41FE-A959-EC8EC54B0A5F@tzi.org> <8B84E185-36AC-4F22-A88E-5A2F1200AE8B@gmail.com> <51DC48F7.2080901@dougbarton.us> <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2509FA39E2@BL2PRD0512MB646.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <51DC5955.4030700@dougbarton.us>
In-Reply-To: <51DC5955.4030700@dougbarton.us>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.232.2]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%DOUGBARTON.US$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 00:33:13 -0000

Doug,

Let's see if we can find some common ground. 

Assume that the IETF is considering a new protocol that doesn't run over TCP. In order to deal with MTU issues, the new protocol must do one of the following:

a) implement PLMTUD or PMTUD
b) restrict itself to sending PDUs so small that when they are encapsulated in an IPv6 header, the resulting packet will not exceed 1280 bytes
c) rely on IPv6 fragmentation

Is there ever a reason why c) is better than a) or b). For that matter, is c) ever an acceptable solution?

                                                  Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Barton [mailto:dougb@dougbarton.us]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 2:41 PM
> To: Ronald Bonica
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Meta-issues: On the deprecation of the fragmentation
> function
> 
> On 07/09/2013 11:12 AM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> > Doug,
> >
> > It might be interesting to revisit what we mean by deprecating IPv6
> fragmentation....
> >
> > It means that the IETF will not approve any new protocols that rely
> upon IPv6 fragmentation. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Thanks for clarifying. FWIW, I understand what is being proposed, and I
> still think it's a bad idea.
> 
> Doug
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email