Re: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt
Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Wed, 26 June 2013 01:49 UTC
Return-Path: <marka@isc.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 7316D21E8100 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 RZllOjGL3wDS for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE8FA21E810A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A11A6C9478; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:48:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isc.org; s=dkim2012; t=1372211342; bh=9swPsSpTtAdjai5RbHAjqjvB/CXb+6M3eGUBL29dtpQ=; h=To:Cc:From:References:Subject:In-reply-to:Date; b=vErHZsVuQDLk0+KtccuFFZumcULpbpmPsmGk2+CoCOOXnnQNqTSOoPyLGpiQ+Zre2 fOA7q3giGXGxWhtjmIUoANSOSQh5aGKP7+DampznLzdQtoEBLE3mW2NQRg4L4W5Jyw 6IiyiS7hOfR78uP9gGkQ8sk479P10iTEIyofxZWE=
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:48:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD64416005A; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:50:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id fIgLNIIdG9nO; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:49:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DDF416008E; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:49:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zmx1.isc.org
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id Jl7dyd6_3y-r; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:49:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (c211-30-172-21.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.172.21]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4693816008D; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:49:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC55536439B3; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:48:41 +1000 (EST)
To: Usman Latif <osmankh@yahoo.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <mailman.41.1372100409.29039.ipv6@ietf.org> <0F21D0E7-B884-4CC1-B808-E0C6447516B1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:06:45 +1000." <0F21D0E7-B884-4CC1-B808-E0C6447516B1@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:48:41 +1000
Message-Id: <20130626014841.AC55536439B3@drugs.dv.isc.org>
X-DCC--Metrics: post.isc.org; whitelist
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <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: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:49:10 -0000
In message <0F21D0E7-B884-4CC1-B808-E0C6447516B1@yahoo.com>, Usman Latif writes : > I have the following suggestion: > > IPv6 hosts can try to gain knowledge of the path MTU to a destination. If the > path blocks or filters PMTUD etc, then the host should revert to 1280 bytes > else the hosts can use a higher packet size. > This mechanism would make Fragment header redundant anyway No, it doesn't. > The only implication of the above mechanism would be that network providers ' > must' support 1280 byte IPv6 packets in all situations > > > Regards, > Usman > > > On 25/06/2013, at 5:00 AM, ipv6-request@ietf.org wrote: > > > If you have received this digest without all the individual message > > attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list > > subscription. To do so, go to > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > > > Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get > > MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME. You can set this option > > globally for all the list digests you receive at this point. > > > > > > > > Send ipv6 mailing list submissions to > > ipv6@ietf.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > ipv6-request@ietf.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > ipv6-owner@ietf.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of ipv6 digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. RE: New Version Notification for > > draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt (Ronald Bonica) > > 2. Re: New Version Notification for > > draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt (Fred Baker (fred)) > > 3. Re: New Version Notification for > > draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt (Ole Troan) > > 4. RE: New Version Notification for > > draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt (Templin, Fred L) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:38:06 +0000 > > From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> > > To: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg" > > <ipv6@ietf.org> > > Subject: RE: New Version Notification for > > draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt > > Message-ID: > > <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2509F870FC@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod. > outlook.com> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > I'd like to understand the basis of these assertions. I believe what I am s > eeing, on the edge, suggests there is in fact V6 fragmentation in both TCP an > d UDP. > > > > > > Hi George, > > > > It would be helpful if you could describe: > > > > > > - Where your observations are being made > > > > - What percentage of traffic is fragmented > > > > - What kinds of packets are being fragmented > > Ron > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/attachments/20130624/2d5885 > 47/attachment.htm> > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:50:04 +0000 > > From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> > > To: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> > > Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg" <ipv6@ietf.org> > > Subject: Re: New Version Notification for > > draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt > > Message-ID: > > <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B924440@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > > > 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) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:37:41 -0400 > > From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> > > To: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com> > > Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "Fred Baker \(fred\)" > > <fred@cisco.com> > > Subject: Re: New Version Notification for > > draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt > > Message-ID: <34E0F96D-5CCB-4275-AF64-E451B00369E0@employees.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > >>> I suppose I'm the contrarian > >> > >> +1. For me, this draft looks dangerous by proposing to deprecate fragmenta > tion with only one-side observation. This draft does not give enough analysis > on these existing fragmentation use cases, particularly these use cases the > fragments within a single domain. > >> > >> On other side , only disallowing fragmentation to be used among domains ma > y helpful to reduce the operational complex. > > > > this draft should help us tease out answers to the question: > > "if we wanted to deprecate IPv6 fragmentation, could we?" > > > > then when we know the collateral damage, it will be easier to answer the ot > her question: > > "should we deprecate IP layer fragmentation or not". > > > > cheers, > > Ole > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:50:36 +0000 > > From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> > > To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> > > Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg" <ipv6@ietf.org> > > Subject: RE: New Version Notification for > > draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt > > Message-ID: > > <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983180A93A6@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > Hi Fred, > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > >> Fred Baker (fred) > >> Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 4:12 PM > >> To: Tore Anderson > >> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg > >> Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-frag- > >> deprecate-00.txt > >> > >> > >> 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. > >> > >>> I cannot support your draft until it discusses or provides solutions > >> for > >>> the above considerations. > >> > >> I'm in a similar case with respect to protocols above IPv6 (OSPF and > >> NFS/UDP come quickly to mind) that depend on fragmentation to deal with > >> the issue. I think the Robustness Principle tells us that such > >> applications SHOULD figure out how to live with PMTU, but it also tells > >> us that we can't deprecate fragmentation unless all known instances > >> that depend on it have defined practical work-arounds. I suspect that > >> this would imply the re-creation of the fragmentation feature in an > >> intermediate protocol, > > > > That is essentially what SEAL does - it provides an intermediate-level > > segmentation and reassembly capability that avoids the pitfalls of IP > > fragmentation. > > > >> which seems like a lot of work with little real gain. > > > > It's not that bad, and IMHO worth it. > > > > Thanks - Fred > > fred.l.templin@boeing.com > > > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > >> ipv6@ietf.org > >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ipv6 mailing list > > ipv6@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > > > > > End of ipv6 Digest, Vol 110, Issue 75 > > ************************************* > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
- RE: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6ma… Usman Latif
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6ma… Mark Andrews
- RE: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6ma… Templin, Fred L
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6ma… Ray Hunter
- RE: FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica… Ronald Bonica