Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 23 January 2020 14:32 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 5F3571207FC for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 06:32:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 sW_J6NvQdMa2 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 06:32:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBA84120133 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 06:32:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.100.103] (unknown [186.183.3.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1820186325; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 15:32:26 +0100 (CET)
To: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, tcpm@ietf.org
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>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <6bcf519e-d641-ea81-f391-10962e13afc5@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:13:16 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <495c6e94-d5a4-effe-3c4d-d5275deb8cc8@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/iekf4kBK2UPEv0XmdZe0ihQ264k>
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: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:32:39 -0000

On 23/1/20 10:24, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> I think this is the wrong ID to discuss anything related to IPv4 ID.
> 
> I suspect some deployed boxes do exist that do shortest-packet first 
> link scheduling; re-use various codepoints; and boxes that in this case 
> clear DF. That's sad, but real. In days gone by, people may have built 
> implementations that relied on any of these. It doesn't mean a modern 
> TCP Spec needs to discuss the IPv4 ID field.
> 
> I'd encourage the TCP Spec to say nothing about how IPv4 uses the ID field.

+1

THanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492