IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-predictable-fragment-id-01

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 09 December 2014 17:57 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 172CB1A8A86 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:57:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 6jJ8B1PqncLa for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:57:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:8240:6:a::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC8B91A8A76 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:57:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cl-1071.udi-01.br.sixxs.net ([2001:1291:200:42e::2]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <fgont@si6networks.com>) id 1XyP23-0002AN-JZ; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 18:57:08 +0100
Message-ID: <5487378A.10007@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 14:55:22 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-predictable-fragment-id-01
References: <CC2EE99E-475C-4DB5-9E7F-ED00B4D48561@employees.org> <86F24DAC-C017-4D09-9431-0C33134B55C2@employees.org> <5486B2E1.4050507@si6networks.com> <54870E28.3010502@innovationslab.net>
In-Reply-To: <54870E28.3010502@innovationslab.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/kB_op1uMqSmjcQKo7iKmupyTiC4
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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 Dec 2014 17:57:19 -0000

On 12/09/2014 11:58 AM, Brian Haberman wrote:
> Fernando,
> 
> On 12/9/14 3:29 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> 
>> * Requiring that the IP ID be unpredictable
> 
> Let's suppose that the WG decides to publish this document and
> makes the above a MUST.
> 
> When the WG decides to advance this PS RFC to IS, how do we
> determine if this critical component is implemented and
> interoperable?

(Me thinking out loud):

1) In the same way we do for RFC6528 or RFC6056

2) With something similar to
(<http://www.si6networks.com/tools/ipv6toolkit>):

# frag6 -d TARGET --frag-id-poliy

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email