IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Fri, 24 January 2020 05:49 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65487120041 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 21:49:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
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 pogQTF247gb4 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 21:49:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE6DD120020 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 21:49:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=jEa77ZBsLoIpdpAvsUG8GfTFHaKPvD5I/qZRSTisNWQ=; b=j8m9ooF4UYVtDvU0uqplN1Wlk vPwd8J8lB+7u+cxJJTTxUtLs8D11+dwH7PxWMXoeCfcyv7e7Yz+yiDFRmDAWItqWrPFyw00QflzUx /xsKYGrv+1GGsMNL85e/MVXCWkuMCv9dBmjQxNWORIp74A3lRO8Efobqmcf1hABuniwuKupQskUz7 dvg8owohSmDR2+KdOApWZIVgYHbP20vWiZKxrf3Qoky/RirqpDbEZQGzp61TL+VMgw2jt5rLD9W9F rghfRS8Xd6zSA/zEWGitnw+7EFaZFvux1LYA4gFt3IKtnbYAakIsYo45Z0iRJk5ji6CwOo2FE6e4D 2wJWKcqQQ==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:49918 helo=[192.168.1.10]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1iurpw-001OgZ-9l; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 00:49:00 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_950ED203-14B9-4D6E-ABED-1D05C5810C22"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\))
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <fe017958-221b-1ae2-7079-1fd0e6ef6d19@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 21:48:55 -0800
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, tcpm@ietf.org
Message-Id: <5C1F0A09-F6B8-4EDB-BB9D-431DD6C04D06@strayalpha.com>
References: <5D669BDA.3000506@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <5D66A044.3060904@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <f4d75224-d7d0-002b-2bca-f93505d6c9d3@mti-systems.com> <4D99C7DD-F57E-4708-8F02-824EB4BF8E24@weston.borman.com> <333A2AF9-7DDD-4FAA-B0BD-E6871564850F@strayalpha.com> <F9E41A50-83FA-477C-8E19-5CE6A58931D3@weston.borman.com> <a7080caa-18ce-94ec-3bbf-ae5c8d1bc17c@si6networks.com> <495c6e94-d5a4-effe-3c4d-d5275deb8cc8@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <F0125DC6-540B-4807-BA46-3D39226FB02B@strayalpha.com> <fe017958-221b-1ae2-7079-1fd0e6ef6d19@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/DDx825kBDcHwi8fyyna0nX2quxc>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 05:49:04 -0000


> On Jan 23, 2020, at 8:58 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
> 
> On 23/1/20 11:54, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> On Jan 23, 2020, at 5:24 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think this is the wrong ID to discuss anything related to IPv4 ID.
>> I disagree.
>> It’s important to support the *requirement* in 6864 by explicitly indicating that the ID *MUST NOT* be used for duplicate segment detection in TCP.
> 
> With layering in mind, why would one want to do that?

Because the information in RFC1122 in section 4.2.2.15 needs to be integrated and corrected to bring it up to date with RFC6864, even if in the negative.

I.e., this doc should be very clear on two points:

	- TCP MUST NOT attempt to control the IP ID to try to indicate duplicate sent segments
	- TCP MUST NOT use the IP ID in trying to identify duplicate received segments

I.e., in summary, exactly to encode that layering.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email