RE: Meta-issues: On the deprecation of the fragmentation function

Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Tue, 09 July 2013 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
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 D254321F9B18 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.967
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.967 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132, 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 OkTeOh9K4Ep8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (co1ehsobe006.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 050BD21F9A50 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail130-co1-R.bigfish.com (10.243.78.251) by CO1EHSOBE036.bigfish.com (10.243.66.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:13:57 +0000
Received: from mail130-co1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail130-co1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CEEAD6038B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:13:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:66.129.224.53; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -23
X-BigFish: VPS-23(zz9371I542I1432Izz1f42h1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1033IL8275dhz2fh2a8h683h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1de9h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail130-co1: domain of juniper.net designates 66.129.224.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.129.224.53; envelope-from=rbonica@juniper.net; helo=P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ; -HQ.jnpr.net ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: CIP:157.56.242.197; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BL2PRD0512HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT
Received: from mail130-co1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail130-co1 (MessageSwitch) id 1373393576700423_18430; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:12:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CO1EHSMHS027.bigfish.com (unknown [10.243.78.243]) by mail130-co1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7E45DC00E3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:12:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (66.129.224.53) by CO1EHSMHS027.bigfish.com (10.243.66.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:12:54 +0000
Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:12:54 -0700
Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:12:53 -0700
Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (216.32.181.183) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:16:38 -0700
Received: from mail205-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.232) by CH1EHSOBE015.bigfish.com (10.43.70.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:12:53 +0000
Received: from mail205-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail205-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1272600B0 for <ipv6@ietf.org.FOPE.CONNECTOR.OVERRIDE>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:12:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail205-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail205-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1373393569845838_10076; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:12:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CH1EHSMHS026.bigfish.com (snatpool2.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.230]) by mail205-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1C4848007A; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:12:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0512HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.242.197) by CH1EHSMHS026.bigfish.com (10.43.70.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:12:47 +0000
Received: from BL2PRD0512MB646.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.9.215]) by BL2PRD0512HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.233.37]) with mapi id 14.16.0329.000; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:12:38 +0000
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Meta-issues: On the deprecation of the fragmentation function
Thread-Topic: Meta-issues: On the deprecation of the fragmentation function
Thread-Index: AQHOfLVoLtuD7p8LeE2Fhu/K5qJEnJlci/SAgAAN9ACAAAD+gIAACExQ
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:12:38 +0000
Message-ID: <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2509FA39E2@BL2PRD0512MB646.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <FAD482FE-4583-472A-8B57-E789A942686E@gmail.com> <1DF7BDE3-1490-41FE-A959-EC8EC54B0A5F@tzi.org> <8B84E185-36AC-4F22-A88E-5A2F1200AE8B@gmail.com> <51DC48F7.2080901@dougbarton.us>
In-Reply-To: <51DC48F7.2080901@dougbarton.us>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.232.2]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%DOUGBARTON.US$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
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: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 18:14:03 -0000

Doug,

It might be interesting to revisit what we mean by deprecating IPv6 fragmentation....

It means that the IETF will not approve any new protocols that rely upon IPv6 fragmentation. Nothing more, nothing less.

Old protocols will continue to emit IPv6 fragments. In order to achieve backwards compatibility, new IPv6 implementations will MUST continue to support reassembly of incoming fragments. New IPv6 implementations MAY even support transmission of IPv6 fragments, if they want to support legacy applications that rely on the transmission of IPv6 fragments.

Network operators will make up their own minds as to whether they will forward IPv6 fragments. They do this today. The draft offers no guidance, one way or the other.

Brian Carpenter recommended some clarifying text regarding what the recommendation to deprecate actually means. You will see this in an updated version of the draft in the next day or so.

                                            Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Doug Barton
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 1:32 PM
> To: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Meta-issues: On the deprecation of the fragmentation
> function
> 
> I stated it a while back, but now that folks seem to be coming around I
> thought it might be worthwhile to restate that I agree that deprecating
> fragmentation is a bad idea. My part of this elephant is that we need
> fragmentation/PMTUD/Window Scaling to work reliably as we look toward
> future networks that are faster, and require larger MTU to be more
> efficient.
> 
> Doug
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>