RE: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Mon, 13 February 2017 15:31 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 41BA512965A; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 07:31:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 1-ILDBiEBV84; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 07:31:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.178]) (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 54B3912961D; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 07:31:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v1DFVJTp041098; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:31:19 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.220]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v1DFVDo5041017 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:31:14 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:eede::8988:eede) by XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdc::8988:efdc) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 07:31:13 -0800
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) by XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 07:31:13 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: "otroan@employees.org" <otroan@employees.org>, "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Subject: RE: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04
Thread-Topic: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04
Thread-Index: AQHShJFkd1t1l5P4r0CAXezaoK6tiaFk8e4AgAIhCtA=
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:31:12 +0000
Message-ID: <f8ce237bd57d4262af37cee5889c1830@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <CACL_3VEm=M9cYG1HEe7wu2RHo23P9hqH4e7qX-GGWds1CLSL=w@mail.gmail.com> <A33FF8C9-E244-4404-9596-503D82F20B47@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <A33FF8C9-E244-4404-9596-503D82F20B47@employees.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ntmYyZbCkO0YXqzqmRet1JxfU4s>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>, Stewart Bryant <stewart@g3ysx.org.uk>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis.all@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 13 Feb 2017 15:31:22 -0000

Hi Ole,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of otroan@employees.org
> Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 2:59 PM
> To: C. M. Heard <heard@pobox.com>
> Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>rg>; IETF <ietf@ietf.org>rg>; Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>rg>; Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>om>;
> Stewart Bryant <stewart@g3ysx.org.uk>uk>; draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis.all@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04
> 
> > How does this work for UDP?
> >
> > Sending packets no larger than 1280 bytes is always an option, and in
> > the case of UDP-based request-response protocols such as DNS that do
> > not have connection state, it may be the only feasible option.
> 
> Yes, but DNS tend to use IP fragmentation that suffers an order of magnitude worse fate than ICMP messages. ;-)
> 
> > Anyway, the point I was trying to make was not to argue about better
> > or worse methods but rather to dispute the statement that PMTUD is
> > essential for avoiding black holes. I don't believe that it is. The
> > draft itself explicitly says that "IPv6 nodes are not required to
> > implement Path MTU Discovery."
> 
> That's correct. But it then must restrict itself to sending packets at the minimum MTU size.
> You cannot implement RFC2473 (IP in IP) without PMTUD for example.

Right, but RFC2473 also has other problems, e.g., integrity.

Thanks - Fred

> [...]
> 
> > What criteria for advancement to IS do you think are not met by this document?
> >
> > I do not dispute that the document has met the formal criteria for IS in Section
> > 2.2 of RFC 6410. I would argue, however, that its failure to provide a complete
> > solution for environments where delivery of ICMP messages is not assured
> > constitutes a significant technical omission for today's Internet, and I note
> > that per RFC 2026 Section 4.1.1, even a PS "should have no known technical
> > omissions." What I am asking the community, and the IESG, is whether it is
> > wise to advance a document with known technical omissions; it seems to me
> > that the Gen-ART reviewer has raised much the same question.
> 
> For IPv6, because of the removal of fragmentation by intermediate nodes, failure to provide a path where ICMP message delivery is
> assured is a considered a configuration error.
> 
> From http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/downloads/publications/pmtu-black-holes-msc-thesis.pdf:
> 
> "We observed that for IPV4 between 4% and 6% of the paths between the vantage points and our experimental setup filter ICMP PTB
> packets. For IPV6 this was between 0.77% and 1.07%. Furthermore, we found that when IPV4 Domain Name System (DNS) servers do
> not act on the receipt of ICMP PTB packets, between 11% and 14% of the answers from these DNS servers are lost. For IPV6 DNS
> servers this was between 40% and 42%. Lastly, we found that for IPV4 approximately 6% of the paths between the vantage points and
> our experimental setup filter IP fragments. For IPV6 this was approximately 10%."
> 
> From that data it looks like we have been quite successful. ICMPv6 PMTUD is treated a lot better (about a 1% loss) than its IPv4
> counterpart.
> Unless better data exists I tend to conclude that the claim that the Internet breaks PTUMD for IPv6 is a myth.
> 
> Fragmentation on the other hand...
> And please don't get me wrong, I think we have a big job to do on MTU issues. I just don't see data showing that PMTUD isn't doing
> what it was designed to do.
> 
> Best regards,
> Ole
> 
>