IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 24 June 2013 17:37 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.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 939DA21E8138 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.578
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 eX2QFAiSZP9y for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (banjo.employees.org [IPv6:2001:1868:205::19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 244E421E8118 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-10-61-102-29.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 640145F4A; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923ACA4B26@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:37:41 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <34E0F96D-5CCB-4275-AF64-E451B00369E0@employees.org>
References: <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2509F85151@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <51C408BC.4030909@forthnetgroup.gr> <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2509F85BCB@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B921F57@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923ACA4B26@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
To: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
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 17:37:48 -0000

>> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email