Re: [Softwires] DS-Lite fragmentation RFC2473 reference
Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de> Thu, 20 October 2011 07:42 UTC
Return-Path: <dr@cluenet.de>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F9421F8B1C for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 o+XL9b83bX2C for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.cluenet.de (mail1.cluenet.de [IPv6:2001:1440:201:101::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 327B421F8AC3 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail1.cluenet.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id D92581080C6; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:42:31 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:42:31 +0200
From: Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de>
To: softwires@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20111020074231.GA12499@srv03.cluenet.de>
Mail-Followup-To: softwires@ietf.org
References: <20111011123727.GA4461@srv03.cluenet.de> <CAC4FAD2.16A5B%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAC4FAD2.16A5B%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Subject: Re: [Softwires] DS-Lite fragmentation RFC2473 reference
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 07:42:34 -0000
Hi Yiu, On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 02:11:44AM +0000, Lee, Yiu wrote: > Host behind B4 isn't aware he tunnel between B4 and AFTR. To make the host > transparent to IPv4 fragmentation, we made the decision to mandate B4 (and > AFTR) fragment and reassemble the oversized packet. We agree that there is > a price to pay (i.e., CPU intensive operation in B4 and AFTR), but this > should affect the host least. Thanks for the clarification. Too bad the vendor landscape (both AFTR and B4) grossly ignore that normative requirement of RFC6333 and either fragment the payload instead of the tunnel, or - even worse - resort to measures like issuing ICMPv4 "frag needed but DF set" even in response to >1460 bytes IPv4 packets WITHOUT DF bit being set. They all have significant problems with performance when being asked to perform proper RFC6333 operation. And then speak of hardening AFTRs against reassembly resources starvation attacks... Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
- [Softwires] DS-Lite fragmentation RFC2473 referen… Daniel Roesen
- Re: [Softwires] DS-Lite fragmentation RFC2473 ref… Francis Dupont
- Re: [Softwires] DS-Lite fragmentation RFC2473 ref… Lee, Yiu
- Re: [Softwires] DS-Lite fragmentation RFC2473 ref… Daniel Roesen