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

George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> Mon, 24 June 2013 00:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ggm@algebras.org>
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 346D411E80BA for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.844
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.844 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 2+9hfC6cIyh3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x22c.google.com (mail-pb0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C01DE11E80D9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id uo1so10230547pbc.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=EB+WU8pc4bOm80YS0d1jPD0zIoxgPLtRAFcYMBO+Rjk=; b=NAJW3RPP1LxKmfSilrFz3ha4YRHUr0lhsrRy01IN0hXyoS+A3JoKO4Zdcewfwz+Dpu q4fmDTghvDSrt0dY7LFmv0Kr2iNGMA2cScqbVppJx7uglW+ONWzwkd1JBBzxN1xEf2g9 EJOjg8Ntl1n2K7BhpuCS2054DSh0Y2AcyfjtIHu9g8jf1mhkLqwm9qv5qc6p6g1wKkQT jKbzkRB39C67duiE1X3W03BuooXa4Kr2O4TlDYj1A6rmuYJtgN74i4s4JDGs0e8h91U2 psX9Crs8Z1EiuLjKH329JcKEXBZu777vAs3WR4MIiWqNyzgPam50MWEghJ2UQmVT9E8X yRNA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.154.225 with SMTP id vr1mr25984646pab.85.1372035598095; Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.25.195 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:dc0:a000:4:e9d1:153a:bc3:8194]
In-Reply-To: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9237F3@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
References: <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2509F85151@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <51C56E60.5040009@fud.no> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9237F3@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:59:58 +1000
Message-ID: <CAKr6gn17O+B78HJofr-z7Nsgv-y8+w4hgKy+YPicgNS126qwXA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt
From: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
To: "ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bacbcec71aa7304dfdbeeeb"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmS2uVDmCaHDBII/alJfMWRL3E/NuGVTruynlqi1BgH2nhmYjn18mY9EkGmi63kmRjr3ip7
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 00:59:59 -0000

Ron asserts the following two statements in this 00 draft:

     "..." As a result, IPv6 fragments carrying TCP payload are rarely
observed on the Internet.

and
     "..." Because many UDP-based applications follow the above-quoted
recommendation, IPv6 fragments carrying UDP traffic are also rarely
observed on the Internet.


I'd like to understand the basis of these assertions. I believe what I am
seeing, on the edge, suggests there is in fact V6 fragmentation in both TCP
and UDP.


Ron also asserts:

  The following is a list of UDP-based applications that do not follow the
recommendation of [RFC5405]  and rely in IPv6 fragmentation:

   o  DNSSEC [RFC4035]

   The effectiveness of these protocols may currently be degraded by
operator behavior.  SeeSection 2.4 for details.


I'd like to point out that at least BIND imposes a 1280 IPv6 packet limit.
Its wired into the code.

-George