Re: [tcpm] WGLC: TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors

Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org> Wed, 11 April 2007 14:27 UTC

Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbdnY-0000lC-C8; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:27:48 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbdnX-0000l7-8Q for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:27:47 -0400
Received: from pork.icsi.berkeley.edu ([192.150.186.19]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbdnV-0007Vl-RT for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:27:47 -0400
Received: from guns.icir.org (adsl-69-222-35-58.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net [69.222.35.58]) by pork.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l3BERiog024031; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 07:27:45 -0700
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (adsl-69-222-35-58.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net [69.222.35.58]) by guns.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E859C1207; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:27:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lawyers.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B5071CD248; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:27:27 -0400 (EDT)
To: Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU>
From: Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC: TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors
In-Reply-To: <20070409171938.GC1301@hut.isi.edu>
Organization: ICSI Center for Internet Research (ICIR)
Song-of-the-Day: Play Guitar
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:27:27 -0400
Message-Id: <20070411142727.8B5071CD248@lawyers.icir.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d185fa790257f526fedfd5d01ed9c976
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mallman@icir.org
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1965555658=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-05.txt
> 
> Mark points out that I should mention that the last non-editorial
> change to this draft was the addition of several omitted error codes
> from Section 2 when the draft was revised from -04 to -05.  WGLC
> readers should make sure that the draft does address all the codes.

I just did some diff-ing and the old and new paragraphs are appended
below.  But, basically rev -04 covers these codes:

  ipv4 dest unreach: 0, 1, 5
  ipv6 type 1: 0, 3

and rev -05 covers these:

  ipv4 dest unreach: 0, 1, 5
  ipv4 time exceeded: 0, 1
  ipv4 param problem
  ipv6 dest unreach: 0, 3
  ipv6 time exceeded: 0, 1
  ipv6 param problem: 0, 1, 2

Just in terms of coverage this seems like a pretty significant change.

Fernando- Can you explain why you did this?  And, in particular, did you
receive feedback that stacks are using this expanded list?  (This is
targeted as an informational document about what stacks do, not as a
standards change.)

Thanks,
allman






-04:
   The Host Requirements RFC [RFC1122] states, in section 4.2.3.9., that
   the ICMP "Destination Unreachable" messages that indicate soft errors
   are ICMP codes 0 (network unreachable), 1 (host unreachable), and 5
   (source route failed).  Even though ICMPv6 didn't exist when
   [RFC1122] was written, one could extrapolate the concept of soft
   errors to ICMPv6 Type 1 Codes 0 (no route to destination) and 3
   (address unreachable).

-05:
   The Host Requirements RFC [RFC1122] states, in Section 4.2.3.9., that
   the ICMP messages that indicate soft errors are ICMP "Destination
   Unreachable" codes 0 (network unreachable), 1 (host unreachable), and
   5 (source route failed), ICMP "Time Exceeded" codes 0 (time to live
   exceeded in transit) and 1 (fragment reassembly time exceeded), and
   ICMP "Parameter Problem".  Even though ICMPv6 didn't exist when
   [RFC1122] was written, one could extrapolate the concept of soft
   errors to ICMPv6 "Destination Unreachable" codes 0 (no route to
   destination) and 3 (address unreachable), ICMPv6 "Time Exceeded"
   codes 0 (Hop limit exceeded in transit) and 1 (Fragment reassembly
   time exceeded), and ICMPv6 "Parameter Problem" codes 0 (Erroneous
   header field encountered), 1 (Unrecognized Next Header type
   encountered) and 2 (Unrecognized IPv6 option encountered).




_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm