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

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Usman Latif
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 6:07 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-frag-
> deprecate-00.txt
> 
> I have the following suggestion:
> 
> IPv6 hosts can try to gain knowledge of the path MTU to a destination.

That is called RFC4821.

> If the path blocks or filters PMTUD etc, then the host should revert to
> 1280 bytes else the hosts can use a higher packet size.

With RFC4821, hosts can use larger packet sizes (if they are
available) even it PMTUD doesn't work.

> This mechanism would make Fragment header redundant anyway

There have been a number of reasons identified as to why the
IPv6 fragment header is still needed.

> The only implication of the above mechanism would be that network
> providers 'must' support 1280 byte IPv6 packets in all situations

That goes without saying. The IPv6 minMTU is 1280 - it's the law.

Thanks - Fred
[e-mail]
 
> Regards,
> Usman
> 
> 
> On 25/06/2013, at 5:00 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> > If you have received this digest without all the individual message
> > attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list
> > subscription.  To do so, go to
> >
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> >
> > Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get
> > MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME.  You can set this option
> > globally for all the list digests you receive at this point.
> >
> >
> >
> > Send ipv6 mailing list submissions to
> >    [e-mail]
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >    [e-mail]
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> >    [e-mail]
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of ipv6 digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >   1. RE: New Version Notification for
> >      draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt (Ronald Bonica)
> >   2. Re: New Version Notification for
> >      draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt (Fred Baker (fred))
> >   3. Re: New Version Notification for
> >      draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt (Ole Troan)
> >   4. RE: New Version Notification for
> >      draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt (Templin, Fred L)
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:38:06 +0000
> > From: Ronald Bonica <[e-mail]>
> > To: George Michaelson <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail] 6man-wg"
> >    <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: RE: New Version Notification for
> >    draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt
> > Message-ID:
> >
> <[e-mail]
> .outlook.com>
> >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Hi George,
> >
> > It would be helpful if you could describe:
> >
> >
> > -          Where your observations are being made
> >
> > -          What percentage of traffic is fragmented
> >
> > -          What kinds of packets are being fragmented
> >                                                Ron
> >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-
> archive/web/ipv6/attachments/20130624/2d588547/attachment.htm>
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:50:04 +0000
> > From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[e-mail]>
> > To: Tore Anderson <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: "[e-mail] 6man-wg" <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: New Version Notification for
> >    draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt
> > Message-ID:
> >    <[e-mail]>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> >
> > On Jun 24, 2013, at 12:45 AM, Tore Anderson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >> * Fred Baker (fred)
> >>
> >>> On Jun 22, 2013, at 2:29 AM, Tore Anderson <[e-mail]> 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?
> >
> > Ah. You're correct. I was thinking about tunnels.
> >
> >>>> - 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
> >
> > -----------------------------------
> > "We are learning to do a great many clever things...The next great
> task
> > will be to learn not to do them."
> >
> > - G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:37:41 -0400
> > From: Ole Troan <[e-mail]>
> > To: Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: "[e-mail] 6man-wg" <[e-mail]>,    "Fred Baker \(fred\)"
> >    <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: New Version Notification for
> >    draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt
> > Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >
> >>> I suppose I'm the contrarian
> >>
> >> +1. For me, this draft looks dangerous by proposing to deprecate
> fragmentation with only one-side observation. This draft does not give
> enough analysis on these existing fragmentation use cases, particularly
> these use cases the fragments within a single domain.
> >>
> >> On other side , only disallowing fragmentation to be used among
> domains may helpful to reduce the operational complex.
> >
> > this draft should help us tease out answers to the question:
> > "if we wanted to deprecate IPv6 fragmentation, could we?"
> >
> > then when we know the collateral damage, it will be easier to answer
> the other question:
> > "should we deprecate IP layer fragmentation or not".
> >
> > cheers,
> > Ole
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:50:36 +0000
> > From: "Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>
> > To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[e-mail]>, Tore Anderson <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: "[e-mail] 6man-wg" <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: RE: New Version Notification for
> >    draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt
> > Message-ID:
> >    <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983180A93A6@XCH-BLV-
> 504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > Hi Fred,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of
> >> Fred Baker (fred)
> >> Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 4:12 PM
> >> To: Tore Anderson
> >> Cc: [e-mail] 6man-wg
> >> Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-frag-
> >> deprecate-00.txt
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jun 22, 2013, at 2:29 AM, Tore Anderson <[e-mail]> 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.
> >>
> >>> I cannot support your draft until it discusses or provides
> solutions
> >> for
> >>> the above considerations.
> >>
> >> I'm in a similar case with respect to protocols above IPv6 (OSPF and
> >> NFS/UDP come quickly to mind) that depend on fragmentation to deal
> with
> >> the issue. I think the Robustness Principle tells us that such
> >> applications SHOULD figure out how to live with PMTU, but it also
> tells
> >> us that we can't deprecate fragmentation unless all known instances
> >> that depend on it have defined practical work-arounds. I suspect
> that
> >> this would imply the re-creation of the fragmentation feature in an
> >> intermediate protocol,
> >
> > That is essentially what SEAL does - it provides an intermediate-
> level
> > segmentation and reassembly capability that avoids the pitfalls of IP
> > fragmentation.
> >
> >> which seems like a lot of work with little real gain.
> >
> > It's not that bad, and IMHO worth it.
> >
> > Thanks - Fred
> > [e-mail]
> >
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ipv6 mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> >
> >
> > End of ipv6 Digest, Vol 110, Issue 75
> > *************************************
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------