IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Non-Last Small IPv6 Fragments

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Wed, 16 January 2019 08:04 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 554D7130DC0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 00:04:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 8hjB10er6HSB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 00:04:37 -0800 (PST)
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 A5A06128D0C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 00:04:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 81E0EB1; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 09:04:35 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1547625875; bh=Vkd8vEO/Jgtkk5tESGYrWTb4EpPeblv3x+attEPMCME=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=gfD70xAw/8wggWuhs0AsqVzEUYCN8YMHP15TmQ1Po6gmI+75DbyRgggzyRNE7PhaY YqgjozTHN0cMx6wHuOFjttbWrD1wuD86p3xaQUMPSPfl9kgGKZid5BBC3A6eJXyTVB D4EvG28mBqBM3+l1D0rXLy3HXuvcQsvwcVAw6+wk=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D95BB0; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 09:04:35 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 09:04:35 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Non-Last Small IPv6 Fragments
In-Reply-To: <c9be798e-5a32-7c3e-a948-9ca2fab30411@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1901160902240.5601@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <CAOSSMjV0Vazum5OKztWhAhJrjLjXc5w5YGxdzHgbzi7YVSk7rg@mail.gmail.com> <1b2e318e-1a9f-bb5d-75a5-04444c42ef20@si6networks.com> <CALx6S37TJr++fC=pVoeS=mrO1fHc4gL_Wtu-XkVTswzs2XxXCA@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S36V7vrVyoTP0G6+S5XeFNB3KWS5UaNnVi20xogRERdCfg@mail.gmail.com> <973A1649-55F6-4D97-A97F-CEF555A4D397@employees.org> <CALx6S34YbBe8xBod3VsWVO33TpZcdxh2uV1vaO8Z_NKnVXp66g@mail.gmail.com> <A3C3F9C0-0A07-41AF-9671-B9E486CB8246@employees.org> <AEA47E27-C0CB-4ABE-8ADE-51E9D599EF8F@gmail.com> <6aae7888-46a4-342d-1d76-10f8b50cebc4@gmail.com> <EC9CC5FE-5215-4105-8A34-B3F123D574B9@employees.org> <4c56f504-7cd7-6323-b14a-d34050d13f4e@foobar.org> <9E6D4A6E-8ABA-4BAB-BEC5-969078323C96@employees.org> <CAAedzxpdF+yhBXfnwUcaQb-HkgdaqXRU3L+S7v8sS1F0OkwM9A@mail.gmail.com> <78a8a0e0-8808-364c-41f7-f81f90362432@gont.com.ar> <CAAedzxpjxhP0nOZVU0CTwA1u3fsPFthrJASjDEfnLcRNvr2gBQ@mail.gmail.com> <c9be798e-5a32-7c3e-a948-9ca2fab30411@si6networks.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/-lqd7YqeEFNCz-gR136PKRHGzLw>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 16 Jan 2019 08:04:40 -0000

On Mon, 14 Jan 2019, Fernando Gont wrote:

> In that case, we should be removing EHs in the fragmentable part (not
> that it would be a a big deal.. just pointing it out).

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6980 that you wrote talks about this. 
Having more generic wording that all headers must be in the first packet 
would make a lot of sense for the generic use-case. Do we have that 
requirement anywhere for generic IPv6 packets?

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email