IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt

Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> Mon, 24 June 2013 07:45 UTC

Return-Path: <tore@fud.no>
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 9062D21F9D7D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 00:45:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 IlJaNefwS+E3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 00:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from greed.fud.no (greed.fud.no [IPv6:2a02:c0:1001:100::145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E1721E80D0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 00:45:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2a02:fe0:cf16:20:21d:60ff:fe48:f59e] (port=33409 helo=wrath.fud.no) by greed.fud.no with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <tore@fud.no>) id 1Ur1T4-0006zu-LS; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:45:42 +0200
Message-ID: <51C7F926.6030902@fud.no>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:45:42 +0200
From: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130514 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt
References: <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2509F85151@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <51C56E60.5040009@fud.no> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9237F3@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9237F3@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg" <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: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 07:45:55 -0000

* Fred Baker (fred)

> On Jun 22, 2013, at 2:29 AM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
>> - When a SIIT translator receives an IPv4 packet with DF=0 that
>> would result in an IPv6 packet that would exceed the IPv6 link MTU,
>> it will split the original packet into IPv6 fragments.
> 
> It *could* fragment the IPv4 packet and send it in two unfragmented
> IPv6 packets.

Wouldn't doing IPv4 fragmentation before translation to IPv6 be
logically identical to this other case I mentioned?

>> - When a SIIT translator receives an IPv4 fragment, it will translate
>> this into one or more IPv6 fragments.

I can't see how simply omitting the Fragmentation header in the IPv6
output could work here, as the node receiving those two unfragmented
IPv6 packets would see the first one containing a truncated L4 payload,
while the second one would be just garbage as it doesn't include a L4
header.

Tore

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email