IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Fri, 24 January 2020 14:50 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 D1D3F12008D for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 06:50:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 dtewI_uCZ0p6 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 06:50:22 -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 17EE512006E for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 06:50:22 -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: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: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=rqkbKKawauRr7XSEPgnHgHcLidXIo42Ofos35uHp6BA=; b=Zya5AEGcWCUg8GLTihTJiBFyn ekfnsCXp/gPJtVUTT+Sx+rhWEmd2LTSr3UTIy6lNTnsEmofVc7oLzlVLeMPNEdMjHGac0omShkjf/ cYXS99pSTTGW0PKK/iL1BHrlzdibztHKBprds9DhZrQnousC2bP16fkj78vtJVsuBA9t4s8HGtY+c p+h9SAlQDufQBzRt2nbmzwWyoz2zukLRzNvIZcp+svPcywhqsGUN4+CJwpQs3IGaRw6ndcidpHpZl 9ys5cAwWgtJVC2VghWBBY0XLo9BZCKQkNgYRkXUDOH6cVQKOX3YE23/ALkwarl/bY/eh4WYlCBswy ngfX/jm4A==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:50608 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 1iv0Hk-002Kmb-Sg; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:50:17 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\))
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <58445bde-d5a1-d853-cb50-80d1ab1fc8e6@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 06:50:12 -0800
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9424F89C-82E1-4669-9C0D-8B9C92D20025@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> <5C1F0A09-F6B8-4EDB-BB9D-431DD6C04D06@strayalpha.com> <58445bde-d5a1-d853-cb50-80d1ab1fc8e6@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/UYdU8-IIEs7MG6ymMO0KXApAdpg>
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 14:50:25 -0000

Text is needed here to deal with the current text in 1122. 793bis doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

Joe

> On Jan 23, 2020, at 10:08 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
> 
> On 24/1/20 02:48, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> On Jan 23, 2020, at 8:58 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> 
> Does it? It would seem to me that these IP ID tricks are an implementation-specific trick that would never be implemented in general-purpose implementations.
> 
> Even more, it would make even less sense in the light of the Internet moving towards IPv6 (albeit at a horrible pace), wheere the "IP ID" is not available in all packets.
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> My question here is whether we want to drag such (mostly obsolete) details into this more modern spec, or not.
> 
> It would seem yo me that a fresh reader of *this* 793bis would probably be quite puzzled when reading this sort of requirement that mostly have to do with what some implementations did ages ago...
> 
> 
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email