IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Non-Last Small IPv6 Fragments

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Mon, 14 January 2019 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.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 7D0FF131321 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 13:20:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4pIgmw8M8fkZ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 13:20:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80AED13131D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 13:20:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Envelope-To: ipv6@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x0ELKc4t063194 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 14 Jan 2019 21:20:39 GMT (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.local
Subject: Re: Non-Last Small IPv6 Fragments
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <CAOSSMjV0Vazum5OKztWhAhJrjLjXc5w5YGxdzHgbzi7YVSk7rg@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S34YbBe8xBod3VsWVO33TpZcdxh2uV1vaO8Z_NKnVXp66g@mail.gmail.com> <A3C3F9C0-0A07-41AF-9671-B9E486CB8246@employees.org> <AEA47E27-C0CB-4ABE-8ADE-51E9D599EF8F@gmail.com> <6aae7888-46a4-342d-1d76-10f8b50cebc4@gmail.com> <EC9CC5FE-5215-4105-8A34-B3F123D574B9@employees.org> <4c56f504-7cd7-6323-b14a-d34050d13f4e@foobar.org> <9E6D4A6E-8ABA-4BAB-BEC5-969078323C96@employees.org> <CAAedzxpdF+yhBXfnwUcaQb-HkgdaqXRU3L+S7v8sS1F0OkwM9A@mail.gmail.com> <78a8a0e0-8808-364c-41f7-f81f90362432@gont.com.ar> <CALx6S37YnSbOUgVoWEA46aN88a3CfERWemhQKi_GOrP_g+=rFQ@mail.gmail.com> <308d9dff-87c4-cc63-6792-fcbfce722d1e@gont.com.ar> <CALx6S34kseXuKrrbB44=wz7OQBysUmbJh++N79Da9Kx1rseAUw@mail.gmail.com> <3f87c4ec-636a-790e-0a6a-0a6b4c2f3a35@foobar.org> <046F449C-E19E-4891-968E-975A03162364@lists.zabbadoz.net> <e7a1d5d2-7d7d-00fd-a178-fc2c7f25a167@foobar.org> <251b73fd-d08b-018c-4a24-c524dafbe25b@gmail.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <e8786213-b1ac-0a8d-093d-579ce84dc126@foobar.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 21:20:37 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/6.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <251b73fd-d08b-018c-4a24-c524dafbe25b@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/gpxKb3WnoenEn8FN24dwdXM1Q8Y>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 14 Jan 2019 21:20:44 -0000

Brian E Carpenter wrote on 14/01/2019 19:47:
> On 2019-01-15 07:47, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> End-to-end died the day the IETF published rfc1631.
> 
> The IETF didn't publish RFC1631. The RFC Editor published it. Although
> the Independent Submissions stream hadn't been formally named at that
> time, that's what this was.

several people commented on this privately. The point I was trying to 
make to Bjoern was that the end-to-end principal ended a long time ago - 
certainly more than the 25 years ago that this rfc was published.  The 
large address space of IPv6 will not make it return.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email