IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 24 June 2013 16:50 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
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 CA30321E813E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.494
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.105, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 aE8QD+7UWsdv for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BEFD21E8139 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1273; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1372092613; x=1373302213; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=U20ZqLFddZjCX1jLIIOOmmktr51bBZa67aVCBiWTAQ4=; b=mjVXFLGfGFDzZQMn6BqMXypG/juNZtjFeU5q/jhnyUY4jZvnZc2+ArFs i0CZ69OI2+qo55ScL3G3vp/zvCzfLnhOiuAO65wo0mkXWtDGoZXxOZ/O6 CLImxUdFQh9tTO802/oYcA3F867Dg7cdCnrDEWwuvE/1CfInyiR9QMb73 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhwFAHh4yFGtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABbgwl6vziBBhZ0giMBAQEEbQoCEAIBCBgKJDIlAgQOBQiIBrpnjx4xB4MCYQOIaaAegxCCKA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,929,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="223764158"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Jun 2013 16:50:05 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com [173.36.12.78]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5OGo5j1020570 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:50:05 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.220]) by xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com ([173.36.12.78]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:50:05 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt
Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOcK7XSn/cDsuJu0Ci4NKOF+S5OplFaDMA
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:50:04 +0000
Message-ID: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B924440@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
References: <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2509F85151@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <51C56E60.5040009@fud.no> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9237F3@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <51C7F926.6030902@fud.no>
In-Reply-To: <51C7F926.6030902@fud.no>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.125]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <B88CF8835A625A4694A7997DD355C47F@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg" <ipv6@ietf.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: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:50:23 -0000

On Jun 24, 2013, at 12:45 AM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:

> * Fred Baker (fred)
> 
>> On Jun 22, 2013, at 2:29 AM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> 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)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email