[Manet-dt] SMF: Usage of IPv4 Identification field

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Fri, 13 April 2007 09:35 UTC

Return-path: <manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HcIBL-0007K5-3h; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 05:35:03 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HcIBI-0007Jt-OU for manet-dt@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 05:35:00 -0400
Received: from psmtp13.wxs.nl ([195.121.247.25]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HcIBH-0005ai-G8 for manet-dt@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 05:35:00 -0400
Received: from Teco (ip56530916.direct-adsl.nl [86.83.9.22]) by psmtp13.wxs.nl (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.15 (built Nov 14 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JGF00EF1JY58N@psmtp13.wxs.nl> for manet-dt@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:34:58 +0200 (MEST)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:36:03 +0200
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
To: manet-dt@ietf.org
Message-id: <001d01c77daf$290af040$0202a8c0@Teco>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thread-index: Acd9rydWRR4SwktmRAOnEMcJZwZMYw==
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25
Subject: [Manet-dt] SMF: Usage of IPv4 Identification field
X-BeenThere: manet-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: MANET Design Team <manet-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt>, <mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/manet-dt>
List-Post: <mailto:manet-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt>, <mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org

The SMF ID deviates from RFC791 for the Identification field.

791: "The originating protocol module of an internet datagram sets the
identification field to a value that must be unique for that
source-destination pair and protocol"

SMF: "In the case that resequencing is deemed necessary, it is RECOMMENDED
that sequence numbering be applied such that a different sequence number
space per <sourceAddress::destinationAddress> duple be used"

The difference is the protocol field. I see two options, modify SMF or add
text clarifying the deviation and analyze for consequences. Or are the rules
for Identification changed since 791?

Teco


_______________________________________________
Manet-dt mailing list
Manet-dt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt