IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Thu, 27 June 2013 22:48 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
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 3829B11E80DC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 JhIp1ukshXHT for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3BE411E80E2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2612; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1372373306; x=1373582906; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=ejf+ce4i91nuJZnPVnZVJoVmrufkzWgWmmfhhpUyMk0=; b=GOXRcW3puyoKtOupmfEK2pM+CU9nxjqkqnf7D/WUpYXL6wLDDHXMyCs5 rlxS2d2xdBWakfrVGwQ8HZ3Y2YRCdgFdJNUJljYkXLgsXkJFNpcb9Sndr Vbq4hU/Id9Rm6rZFnD0rjhJm60ehp7cmIpBvFjmnJRauDhLSkS/fXhQXO k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhoFANS/zFGtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABbgwl6vwyBAxZ0giQBAQEDeRACAQgEHh0HIREUEQIEDgUIh3QDD7JqDYhSjG2CNzEHgwJjA4hqjHSOB4UlgxGCKA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.87,955,1363132800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="228398369"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2013 22:48:26 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5RMmQrW004931 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 27 Jun 2013 22:48:26 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.220]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 17:48:25 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Marc Lampo <marc.lampo.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate
Thread-Topic: draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate
Thread-Index: AQHOctOqKSNCWRrYkESNmwbscYIw9plJYzyAgAANDgCAAQ64gA==
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 22:48:25 +0000
Message-ID: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92B349@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
References: <20130624204008.GB3647@virgo.local> <20130624205226.GC3647@virgo.local> <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2509F8761C@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <51C902DC.9000408@gmail.com> <m24ncmaozs.wl%randy@psg.com> <2EA20F89-02F5-4D06-90EE-A7D2974045A3@employees.org> <m2li5yj7u3.wl%randy@psg.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9268E3@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <m2ehbpij86.wl%randy@psg.com> <51CB91E4.5090603@gmail.com> <20130627055241.GA3358@virgo.local> <CAB0C4xNdr2YxxcNXDrA+HpnneKeWS37F=qW7iJc-iqieYqeS9A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB0C4xNdr2YxxcNXDrA+HpnneKeWS37F=qW7iJc-iqieYqeS9A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.125]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92B349xmbrcdx09ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: 6man <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: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 22:48:32 -0000

On Jun 26, 2013, at 11:39 PM, Marc Lampo <marc.lampo.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:marc.lampo.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:

Would we think about deprecating the use of fragmentation fields in the IPv4 header and recommending they MUST always be set to 0 ?

I would say "no", for the same reasons that I think it's a poor idea in IPv6. It pushes the requirement to match MTU to the client of IP. Some clients, notably IPv4, have ways to do that. Some have been noted that don't.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email