IETF Logo Mail Archive

draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 27 June 2013 01:14 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 3F24511E8164 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 XOnNmxLmzu7t for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22d.google.com (mail-pa0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86D0211E8161 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id bi5so310233pad.18 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gyKbfNDeq7P/Ip8etm5Dp2Pi7eKX1Hhn+Oc6a26WFyg=; b=p23IIowic1IH9hVnfDouaye3iyTdxFPcKVYgv2TW1Uft0YcwcAkml8KpKa8drtG2gv StIaKzteJweRJ6X5Eyt2qVNIeSND0NxNqDjvNO9QTaQKU34585hTCNo4RExJto9gCegg cbfKCNkrT3cTcb8AeJ27E5QVHi3LE8oeRRt4vpoh/VK5lREtJ4/gc1jg7YW+Pvgz6dyE 8z5XdaavLP+jYHr9YkROJtI6RvoCZLd8a7X66qrmBG9Vo2oqPx4wsUEq8aBCaDM5pKTw EiHqYnitH9+mVKjx+0kF6Li6N9a1Dj6rJI3NOsmT/wOcG0uZoatjviwD/R8aZL/u9s6M cPDA==
X-Received: by 10.66.145.98 with SMTP id st2mr3396094pab.24.1372295650113; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.24.31.170] (wireless-nat-1.auckland.ac.nz. [130.216.30.112]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pm7sm484264pbb.31.2013.06.26.18.14.08 for <ipv6@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51CB91E4.5090603@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:14:12 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate
References: <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2509F85151@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <51C32FA9.1090207@gmail.com> <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2509F85F38@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <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>
In-Reply-To: <m2ehbpij86.wl%randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 01:14:11 -0000

Cutting to the chase, and assuming that the next version
will have more analysis and observational evidence, I'm thinking
something like the following:

3.  Recommendation

   This memo deprecates IPv6 fragmentation and the IPv6 fragment header.
   Application and transport layer protocols SHOULD support effective
   PMTU discovery [RFC4821], since ICMP-based PMTU discovery [RFC1981]
   is unreliable. Any application or transport layer protocol that
   cannot support effective PMTU discovery MUST NOT in any circumstances
   send IPv6 packets that exceed the IPv6 minimum MTU of 1280 bytes.

   IPv6 stacks and forwarding nodes SHOULD continue to support inbound
   fragmented IPv6 packets as specified in [RFC2460]. However, this
   requirement exceeds the capability of some types of forwarding node
   such as firewalls and load balancers. Therefore implementers and
   operators need to be aware that on many paths through the Internet,
   IPv6 fragmentation will fail. Legacy applications and transport layer
   protocols that do not conform to the previous paragraph can expect
   connectivity failures as a result.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email