Re: Non-Last Small IPv6 Fragments

Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> Wed, 16 January 2019 08:15 UTC

Return-Path: <tim.chown@jisc.ac.uk>
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 786291310EC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 00:15:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=jisc.ac.uk
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 1yG2J5EB9sHo for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 00:15:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eu-smtp-delivery-189.mimecast.com (eu-smtp-delivery-189.mimecast.com [207.82.80.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C762130DCD for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 00:15:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jisc.ac.uk; s=mimecast20170213; t=1547626553; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=hOb87us50s3euiiLEYXg2V8NWqEnNrqvhTbSIX3WJgg=; b=bQafzrwAbjBLCAGb6OHwzIdRNYNvld+AzfdmjFf/P44JsG3ByfSHO67ABiM9GRAbEplU3oqkGwB/KQUn9uV4FstXxyAs6sHA3EphX8Na+NOgAMdiJ2GaYNax7C0yNYslhlP0HqzfUZ3MfiqVyzEAqWGv4Zn+plL70fJWhuAkshI=
Received: from EUR02-HE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-he1eur02lp2054.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.5.54]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id uk-mta-78-YEdkv4gpOcihtzHpzHrqzg-1; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 08:15:49 +0000
Received: from AM0PR07MB4177.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (52.133.59.156) by AM0PR07MB4515.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (52.135.151.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1558.8; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 08:15:43 +0000
Received: from AM0PR07MB4177.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2136:60d1:2238:55ed]) by AM0PR07MB4177.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2136:60d1:2238:55ed%2]) with mapi id 15.20.1537.018; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 08:15:43 +0000
From: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
CC: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Non-Last Small IPv6 Fragments
Thread-Topic: Non-Last Small IPv6 Fragments
Thread-Index: AQHUqPn0RyQ6S/6cAUydjOgo8+OsUKWoxzGAgAAdVICAAAKvgIAAAucAgAACcACAAAjMgIAASb0AgAAjOwCAAK+7AIAAA6OAgAALsgCAAEZKgIAAE/IAgAAXVQCAAAPVgIAAEn0AgAAEHgCAAE3PgIAABeQAgAAOCICAAFcDgIAAfXIAgAAZ3oCAAApHAIAABP2AgAGEMYCAAAiDgIAABpaAgAAEKwCAAATlgIAAAcOAgACUkQCAABHPAIAA77OAgAAaEgCAAjdVgIAAAxsA
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 08:15:43 +0000
Message-ID: <3823E79A-B382-4186-9CDD-97A987174466@jisc.ac.uk>
References: <CAOSSMjV0Vazum5OKztWhAhJrjLjXc5w5YGxdzHgbzi7YVSk7rg@mail.gmail.com> <1b2e318e-1a9f-bb5d-75a5-04444c42ef20@si6networks.com> <CALx6S37TJr++fC=pVoeS=mrO1fHc4gL_Wtu-XkVTswzs2XxXCA@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S36V7vrVyoTP0G6+S5XeFNB3KWS5UaNnVi20xogRERdCfg@mail.gmail.com> <973A1649-55F6-4D97-A97F-CEF555A4D397@employees.org> <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> <CAAedzxpjxhP0nOZVU0CTwA1u3fsPFthrJASjDEfnLcRNvr2gBQ@mail.gmail.com> <c9be798e-5a32-7c3e-a948-9ca2fab30411@si6networks.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1901160902240.5601@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1901160902240.5601@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
x-originating-ip: [2001:a88:d510:1101:2869:dd5d:52e0:80b0]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM0PR07MB4515; 20:qHN1Cb8kLOAVMU1nb55aif9FPl1/wGZl4av3HNdEfx4gUnhtLwohjL8zon1gC5jsa1RefPD439Aye+zd0vGl9TwhTJ9bHXLreh1+iEkfd8s1o30fcDDyZZbx7oJPnw+ybn8ObgO9L+X01OpAO9ObrrjiJsqOJXcpXC1f/eyOWC0=
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 90ce61b9-ffe9-4d86-5759-08d67b8acf76
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600109)(711020)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:AM0PR07MB4515;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM0PR07MB4515:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM0PR07MB4515937E7F8461B489AD6B38D6820@AM0PR07MB4515.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 091949432C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39850400004)(376002)(396003)(346002)(366004)(136003)(189003)(199004)(6486002)(46003)(6346003)(186003)(6436002)(71190400001)(105586002)(74482002)(229853002)(71200400001)(86362001)(476003)(76176011)(2616005)(54906003)(6246003)(50226002)(53936002)(6306002)(81156014)(6916009)(97736004)(81166006)(83716004)(6512007)(2906002)(4744005)(14454004)(8676002)(36756003)(6116002)(57306001)(478600001)(786003)(82746002)(7736002)(25786009)(5660300001)(256004)(72206003)(8936002)(99286004)(33656002)(4326008)(6506007)(68736007)(446003)(53546011)(102836004)(106356001)(11346002)(966005)(316002)(93886005)(305945005)(486006); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM0PR07MB4515; H:AM0PR07MB4177.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: mkUP9gZ7aQQ/+hF3IJn30EB4H9oLkRlhStAp0z3PDt4CcCyuYfPRFwu9QBDvRP3j7Juu4q8JdyU0V978HKk83a0iLCRyxq2JndgN7GS1haVYwQiLhYQMOjZNNDyq6gP3RzfZnlsdYO8oZ99apMzZPTip+KTMZOHvLovXirM+gpa/Y/qF/Tb4oWX2vvgKWMqv8x0tQT4eshGMTghDU4td9CRVLJVEMe5zEiuDc5XBDHvqE7k5JNwJ1k/vtRNkR7gyCrjGHFM8Xc0RefJPShMCXiVZ4NuXOGXATmH1qcahxTeuKZN6bJhUg/F/Rc91nmKAmOD2Z/OqjvpYoqF1/+nKZ0ygUGq2Hgr5EPrPIiwDlL4Am7H3VWU/61Ct5nNqtNPPFYFbp5lSFGn1am1kU+3WKAbgrnzOtWSypMivbN0ZrgE=
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-ID: <9C76D4AEFB6022498660AA2F8FB87875@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: jisc.ac.uk
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 90ce61b9-ffe9-4d86-5759-08d67b8acf76
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Jan 2019 08:15:43.4575 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 48f9394d-8a14-4d27-82a6-f35f12361205
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM0PR07MB4515
X-MC-Unique: YEdkv4gpOcihtzHpzHrqzg-1
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="WINDOWS-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/wa-VAZNOuaG5Gu3BvNZdJJdB3Dw>
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: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 08:15:59 -0000

> On 16 Jan 2019, at 08:04, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2019, Fernando Gont wrote:
> 
>> In that case, we should be removing EHs in the fragmentable part (not
>> that it would be a a big deal.. just pointing it out).
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6980 that you wrote talks about this. Having more generic wording that all headers must be in the first packet would make a lot of sense for the generic use-case. Do we have that requirement anywhere for generic IPv6 packets?

Isn't that RFC 7112, for which Fernando is one author, which is now cited in RFC 8200?  See note (3) in Section 4.5 of RFC 8200 - "Extension headers, if any, and the Upper-Layer header.  These headers must be in the first fragment."

Tim