IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Tue, 25 June 2013 10:44 UTC

Return-Path: <gih@apnic.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 6309421F9F80 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 03:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.233, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, RELAY_IS_203=0.994, 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 Jmfuii9YVduw for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 03:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from so-mailgw.apnic.net (so-mailgw.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dd8:a:3::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0A42A21F9C6E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 03:44:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NXMDA1.org.apnic.net (unknown [203.119.93.247]) by so-mailgw.apnic.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:44:10 +1000 (EST)
Received: from IAMDA2.org.apnic.net (2001:dd8:a:852::21) by NXMDA1.org.apnic.net (2001:dd8:9:802::11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:44:11 +1000
Received: from [192.168.1.7] (203.119.101.249) by IAMDA2.org.apnic.net (203.119.111.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.438.0; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:44:10 +1000
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: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1306251938410.23024@ilion>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:44:09 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <4979E44C-B449-4B06-9293-C6F03FA9C87B@apnic.net>
References: <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2509F85151@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <51C56E60.5040009@fud.no> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9237F3@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <CAKr6gn17O+B78HJofr-z7Nsgv-y8+w4hgKy+YPicgNS126qwXA@mail.gmail.com> <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2509F870FC@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAKr6gn2zu2n-pJMirG-seN5WX=Evyquu9EqqLOV-zf-RKQ9eYg@mail.gmail.com> <20130625015317.6B256363BD8F@drugs.dv.isc.org> <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2509F878B0@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <EE995320-48D6-4D97-888A-0C2AD5024743@apnic.net> <ABCE0528-9694-4A88-9A0C-F681B62227C8@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1306251938410.23024@ilion>
To: Glen Turner <gdt@gdt.id.au>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg" <ipv6@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.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: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:44:24 -0000

On 25/06/2013, at 8:17 PM, Glen Turner <gdt@gdt.id.au> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> I think it would be good to fix this even if we don't deprecate IPv6 fragmentation.
> 
> What's this look like on the API side? You pass in a packet. Does the
> socket block because there may a packet in parallel (and how does
> the mechanism under the API know that)?  Is that better or worse
> than fragmentation?
> 
> I think that FreeBSD has done the reasonable thing. Given that the API
> has accepted the packet it is transmitting it using the most recent
> information about the path, rather than transmitting it with high
> odds of failure.

I also believe that FreeBSD has done the best it can, and reasonably so. It is debatable whether
a ICMP6 PTB message should apply to all currently open TCP sessions to the same destination, as
I wonder about multi-path TCP and path diversity here.


Geoff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email