UDP+Fragmentation (was: "Deprecate")
Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Thu, 01 August 2013 08:37 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 8EB8121F9CE7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 01:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.667, 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 03z3vzV0B2Ya for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 01:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co9outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (co9ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com [207.46.163.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81B2821F9C82 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 01:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail167-co9-R.bigfish.com (10.236.132.243) by CO9EHSOBE019.bigfish.com (10.236.130.82) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:37:45 +0000
Received: from mail167-co9 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail167-co9-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E29987001DC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:37:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:66.129.224.54; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:P-EMF02-SAC.jnpr.net; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -24
X-BigFish: VPS-24(zz98dI9371I542I1432Izz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1de098h1033IL17326ah1de096h8275dh1de097hz2fh2a8h683h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1b2fh1fb3h1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1de9h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail167-co9: domain of juniper.net designates 66.129.224.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.129.224.54; envelope-from=rbonica@juniper.net; helo=P-EMF02-SAC.jnpr.net ; SAC.jnpr.net ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: CIP:157.56.237.149; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BY2PRD0511HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT
Received: from mail167-co9 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail167-co9 (MessageSwitch) id 1375346263925543_24419; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:37:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CO9EHSMHS022.bigfish.com (unknown [10.236.132.248]) by mail167-co9.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4ADF640047 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:37:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from P-EMF02-SAC.jnpr.net (66.129.224.54) by CO9EHSMHS022.bigfish.com (10.236.130.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:37:43 +0000
Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMF02-SAC.jnpr.net (172.24.192.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 01:37:42 -0700
Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.146.0; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 01:37:42 -0700
Received: from tx2outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (65.55.88.12) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 01:50:38 -0700
Received: from mail134-tx2-R.bigfish.com (10.9.14.225) by TX2EHSOBE009.bigfish.com (10.9.40.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:37:40 +0000
Received: from mail134-tx2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail134-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9F68160185 for <ipv6@ietf.org.FOPE.CONNECTOR.OVERRIDE>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:37:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail134-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail134-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 1375346254613276_5226; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:37:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TX2EHSMHS019.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.243]) by mail134-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76FAAA004C; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:37:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BY2PRD0511HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.237.149) by TX2EHSMHS019.bigfish.com (10.9.99.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:37:34 +0000
Received: from BY2PRD0511MB428.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.5.72]) by BY2PRD0511HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.129.37]) with mapi id 14.16.0341.000; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:37:33 +0000
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>, IPv6 <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: UDP+Fragmentation (was: "Deprecate")
Thread-Topic: UDP+Fragmentation (was: "Deprecate")
Thread-Index: AQHOjpJdxBsThTTW2kO9nlkD8PFVZw==
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 08:37:32 +0000
Message-ID: <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE25127185AC@BY2PRD0511MB428.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B963A9D@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <m2fvuwspja.wl%randy@psg.com> <33F639DD-2CD8-4580-A0C8-F63068497BEA@gmail.com> <m238qwsfna.wl%randy@psg.com> <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2512713455@BY2PRD0511MB428.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B965346@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE251271361B@BY2PRD0511MB428.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1307301439030.24674@shell4.bayarea.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1307301439030.24674@shell4.bayarea.net>
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%POBOX.COM$RO%2$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$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
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: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 08:37:53 -0000
Cmh, When I read this message, my first reaction was to scream "that such a thing could not possibly be deployed, because operators will filter anything that they don't know or have an immediate use for." But after a few hallway discussions, I am starting to think that the idea might be viable. When the adrenaline and endorphin rush of IETF week has subsided, we should a) discuss whether this is a viable option and b) if so, define the replacement protocol in the Transport Area. Chairs, The conversation proposed above may not be within the charter of 6man. If/when you think that there is a need to move this conversation, I can ask the transport Ads for a non-WG mailing list. However, if you are happy for at least the first part of this conversation to occur on this mailing list, we can continue here. Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > C. M. Heard > Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 12:40 AM > To: IPv6 > Subject: RE: "Deprecate" > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, Ronald Bonica wrote: > > Thinking a little more about it, RTP and UDP aren't the real > culprits. > > The culprits are the applications that run over them. > > So, we should limit our statement to applications, and not > > "applications and transport layer protocols". > > I don't agree, at least not if the principal reason why IP fragments > get dropped is that they lack the L4 header (or at least that the non- > initial fragments do) and thereby break stateless ACLs. The problem is > that UDP and its kin such as UDP-lite and DCCP lack transport-layer > segmentation, such as is present in TCP, and are thereby force their > clients to rely on IP fragmentation to provide this service. So yes, > these transport protocols are the culprits. > > The idea that immediately comes to mind is to design _replacements_ > transport protocols for UDP and kin that contain a transport layer > segmentation mechanism. These would be for use by applications that > can't get by without such a mechanism; existing applications that don't > need to rely on IP fragmentation can continue to use UDP and kin. The > replacement for UDP might have a header that looks something like this: > > 0 15 16 31 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Source Port | Destination Port | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Length | Segment Offset |Res|M| > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Identification | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Checksum | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | data octets ... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-| ... > > (Other and perhaps better possibilities exist, of course.) > > Having said that, I immediately imagine screaming that such a thing > could not possibly be deployed, because operators will filter anything > that they don't know or have an immediate use for, and so it would > never get any traction. > > Well, maybe so, but something has to give. The operations folks have > complained that IP fragmentation is awful, they have to filter > fragments because it defeats their stateless ACLs. OK; let's agree > that's a defect that needs to be fixed. But if you don't want the fix > to break other important stuff (e.g., DNSSEC, as metioned in Section > 3.1 of draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-02), you need a replacement for > IP fragmentation (or an augmentation, such as in > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg18389.html by Mark > Andrews). Maybe I just lack imagination, but I can't see any fix that > does not involve SOME change in operator behavior. > > //cmh > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >
- Re: "Deprecate" Bob Hinden
- Re: "Deprecate" Randy Bush
- "Deprecate" Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: "Deprecate" Randy Bush
- RE: "Deprecate" Ronald Bonica
- Re: "Deprecate" Fernando Gont
- Re: "Deprecate" Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: "Deprecate" Fernando Gont
- RE: "Deprecate" Ronald Bonica
- RE: "Deprecate" Ronald Bonica
- Re: "Deprecate" Randy Bush
- RE: "Deprecate" Templin, Fred L
- Re: "Deprecate" Bob Hinden
- RE: "Deprecate" Templin, Fred L
- Re: "Deprecate" james woodyatt
- RE: "Deprecate" Ronald Bonica
- Re: "Deprecate" Brian E Carpenter
- RE: "Deprecate" Ronald Bonica
- RE: "Deprecate" C. M. Heard
- Re: "Deprecate" Doug Barton
- Re: "Deprecate" james woodyatt
- Re: "Deprecate" Mark Andrews
- Re: "Deprecate" Randy Bush
- UDP+Fragmentation (was: "Deprecate") Ronald Bonica
- Re: "Deprecate" RJ Atkinson
- Re: "Deprecate" RJ Atkinson
- RE: UDP+Fragmentation (was: "Deprecate") Templin, Fred L
- Re: UDP+Fragmentation (was: "Deprecate") Bob Hinden
- Re: "Deprecate" Mark Andrews
- RE: "Deprecate" Ronald Bonica
- Re: "Deprecate" Havard Eidnes
- Re: "Deprecate" Arturo Servin
- Re: "Deprecate" Randy Bush
- Re: "Deprecate" RJ Atkinson
- Re: "Deprecate" Ole Troan
- Re: "Deprecate" RJ Atkinson
- Re: "Deprecate" Ole Troan
- Re: "Deprecate" RJ Atkinson
- RE: "Deprecate" Templin, Fred L
- Re: "Deprecate" RJ Atkinson
- RE: "Deprecate" Templin, Fred L