RE: Deprecation of IPv6 atomic fragments (some good news)

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Nalini,

OK. But, tunnel encapsulations frequently include 32-bit Identification values
(GRE, GUE, IPsec, others) which can be used for DPD so I was wondering if a
similar facility was available for raw IPv6 packets. It sounds like with the
PSN feature your document is providing there is opportunity for DPD but
in a different way than widely-deployed tunneling systems currently do it.

I think we had this same conversation at one of the recent meetings, but
I am left wondering whether having two different ways of doing DPD will
be confusing to implementers. Maybe what you have is better, but will
widely-deployed networking gear be overhauled to pick up the new
feature?

Thanks - Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 9:00 AM
> To: [e-mail]; Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Templin, Fred L
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Deprecation of IPv6 atomic fragments (some good news)
> 
> You can use the sequence number (PSN) in combination with the other fields
> 
> PSNTP      : Packet Sequence Number This Packet
> PSNLR      : Packet Sequence Number Last Received
> DELTATLR : Delta Time Last Received
> DELTATLS : Delta Time Last Sent
> 
> to get quite a good idea of duplicate packets.   You can also differentiate duplicate packets from retransmissions.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Nalini Elkins
> CEO and Founder
> Inside Products, Inc.
> www.insidethestack.com
> [phone]
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> On Fri, 4/14/17, Templin, Fred L <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>  Subject: RE: Deprecation of IPv6 atomic fragments (some good news)
>  To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "Fernando Gont" <[e-mail]>,
> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>  Cc: "[e-mail]" <draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-
> [e-mail]>
>  Date: Friday, April 14, 2017, 8:53 AM
> 
>  Oh, I just looked and saw that
>  the option presents 16-bit Packet Sequence Numbers.
>  I was thinking 32 for use cases such as
>  Duplicate Packet Detection. Is there any way to
>  get a 32-bit Identification?
> 
>  Thanks - Fred
> 
>  > -----Original
>  Message-----
>  > From: ipv6 [mailto:[e-mail]]
>  On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L
>  > Sent:
>  Friday, April 14, 2017 8:50 AM
>  > To: [e-mail];
>  Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>;
>  [e-mail]
>  > Cc: [e-mail]
>  > Subject: RE: Deprecation of IPv6 atomic
>  fragments (some good news)
>  >
>  > Very good. Thanks.
>  >
> 
>  > Fred
>  >
>  > > -----Original Message-----
>  > > From: [e-mail]
>  [mailto:[e-mail]]
>  > > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 8:45
>  AM
>  > > To: Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>;
>  [e-mail];
>  Templin, Fred L <[e-mail]>
>  > > Cc: [e-mail]
>  > > Subject: RE: Deprecation of IPv6
>  atomic fragments (some good news)
>  >
>  >
>  > > Fred,
>  >
>  >
>  > > For sequence numbers in IPv6,
>  You may wish to look at
>  > >
>  > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option/
>  > >
>  > > which was
>  on the telechat agenda for Thursday.   We will be
>  addressing all the comments & hope to be rolling quite
>  soon.
>  > >
>  > >
>  Thanks,
>  > >
>  > >
>  Nalini Elkins
>  > > CEO and Founder
>  > > Inside Products, Inc.
>  > > www.insidethestack.com
>  > > [phone]
>  >
>  >
>  > >
>  --------------------------------------------
>  > > On Fri, 4/14/17, Templin, Fred L
>  <[e-mail]>
>  wrote:
>  > >
>  > >
>  Subject: RE: Deprecation of IPv6 atomic fragments (some good
>  news)
>  > >  To: "Fernando
>  Gont" <[e-mail]>,
>  "[e-mail]"
>  <[e-mail]>
>  > >  Cc: "[e-mail]"
>  <draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-
>  >
>  > [e-mail]>
>  > >  Date: Friday, April 14, 2017, 8:40
>  AM
>  > >
>  > >  Hi
>  Fernando,
>  > >
>  >
>  >  With the deprecation of atomic fragments, is
>  > >  there another way to include
>  > >  an
>  > >
>  Identification value in the header of an IPv6 packet? Do
>  we
>  > >  need a new
>  > >  extension header or destination
>  > >  option for that?
>  > >
>  > >  Thanks
>  -
>  > >  Fred
>  >
>  >
>  > >  > -----Original
>  > >  Message-----
>  >
>  >  > From: ipv6 [mailto:[e-mail]]
>  > >  On Behalf Of Fernando Gont
>  > >  > Sent:
>  >
>  >  Friday, April 14, 2017 8:28 AM
>  >
>  >  > To: [e-mail]
>  > >  > Cc: [e-mail]
>  > >  > Subject: Deprecation of IPv6
>  atomic
>  > >  fragments (some good
>  news)
>  > >  >
>  >
>  >  > Folks,
>  > >  >
>  > >  > Thought it might be good
>  feedback for the
>  > >  group. Juniper
>  published a
>  > >  >
>  > >  vulnerability advisory with patches
>  for the issue discussed
>  > >  in
>  RFC8021:
>  > >  > <https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=JSA10780&actp=SUBSCRIPTION>
>  > >  >
>  > >
>  > Besides providing
>  > >  the
>  rationale for the change in rfc2460bis and
>  > >  > RFC7915, this kind of thing
>  was one of the
>  > >  motivations for
>  working on
>  > >  > such RFC.
>  > >  >
>  > >
>  > Thanks!
>  > >  >
>  > >  > Cheers,
>  >
>  >  > --
>  > >  > Fernando
>  Gont
>  > >  > e-mail: [e-mail]
>  > >  || [e-mail]
>  > >  > PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5
>  322E 45C7 F1C9
>  > >  3945 96EE A9EF
>  D076 FFF1
>  > >  >
>  > >  >
>  > >
>  >
>  > >  >
>  >
>  >
>  --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > >  > IETF IPv6 working group
>  mailing list
>  > >  > [e-mail]
>  > >  > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>  >
>  >  >
>  > >
>  --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > >  IETF IPv6 working group mailing
>  list
>  > >  [e-mail]
>  > >  Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>  > >
>  --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > >
>  >
>  >
>  --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>  > [e-mail]
>  > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>  >
>  --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>