IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Comments on recent UDP options work

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Tue, 19 February 2019 05:45 UTC

Return-Path: <heard@pobox.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E926126C15 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:45:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=heard@pobox.com header.d=pobox.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 K-iTZwVHGgTz for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:45:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80DE11200D8 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:45:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34DDC40B09 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 00:45:49 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=mime-version :references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; s=sasl; bh=DlZZUcjq+JJpIPoFB8D+jfyT+uo=; b=UteVCN 03AYSfBwf3rM8SsfvCBCkE/EcwisYtbXL+IBVWwyzY3/C7D0KCrbZ7GC7l4XvytA vQ+/qPWZeoffbmdh2rBDNimPUJUhPCLtT0Nztou1+W/28tIS7WLzB0B2eGPemlYL iUkcc8D9vHJKrQ5zm1SK2y/UE6sgdnnCDY3qo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=mime-version :references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Z3etW9OxEzVX3mp8yQF+RvBYS9Hb0OB6 IjNJHOGsxag1kWNrhbT0HxcJQzQnOdthJzwXnuRAQApC12mgs4lUUG7lq0KcNMcL RzvtNDbQAUmtmxdQoWknVYqbCptvtC3vMDhtyokTAnVV1FGhkZ6VcSzNhhX6y+F2 +cXmncqu29k=
Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DD8140B08 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 00:45:49 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: from mail-it1-f176.google.com (unknown [209.85.166.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D662040B07 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 00:45:46 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: by mail-it1-f176.google.com with SMTP id x131so3429431itc.3 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:45:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZ4ECnFUT+j4B8bbv245DtjWNbWnhqEqITNyeCFtVwzEX+C2XaN hXffBbQrqH/0DzBS/JNa91NT7Z7qBC+U5sWYE0M=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZu7Q0h8ohpKkGDjAiNUe9F7j2CE+MjXDepUBZOh+us+3TvVWAlA6ROp37l2EKO3GnaOoDkMy6uy1++bbC1Wlc=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:eb0b:: with SMTP id h11mr1297109itj.138.1550555145655; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:45:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CACL_3VFG+B1AZfC09XTTq0Ht8tM5RoZt8zy1c5aK2NLpQQwKGA@mail.gmail.com> <DDBEA9CB-86A1-496C-BC73-F4C62D05ED05@strayalpha.com> <5BFACDAD.7050109@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <2CFB9765-6B83-4857-B4E6-355BCD04FBFC@strayalpha.com> <5BFAEB18.5020302@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <CACL_3VGbiW-AVnHecufCfd-3P8ZM3MxLqAXtGWcTd=Mp+RoT8g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACL_3VGbiW-AVnHecufCfd-3P8ZM3MxLqAXtGWcTd=Mp+RoT8g@mail.gmail.com>
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:45:33 -0800
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACL_3VHcS6L_g2Yt5Qy7KkRs_zd8QJF3LOcejqPrHCK4D5K8LQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACL_3VHcS6L_g2Yt5Qy7KkRs_zd8QJF3LOcejqPrHCK4D5K8LQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 9ADB3392-3409-11E9-84DA-D01F9763A999-06080547!pb-smtp20.pobox.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/9UE2LlW9Z_NbEufQXmUQtMWsSUw>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Comments on recent UDP options work
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 05:45:53 -0000

On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 12:33 PM C. M. Heard <heard@pobox.com> wrote:
> The attraction that I see for FRAG as a UDP-Option is that it offers
> incremental deployability in the important case of DNS (and probably in
> some other cases as well). Its use can be negotiated on a
> transaction-by-transaction basis. The negotiation signal from a client
> that supports it (use of a null FRAG option in a request) will be ignored
> by a legacy server. And an upgraded server will not use the option unless
> the client negotiates it. So, upgraded client can talk to a legacy server,
> and a legacy client can talk to an upgraded server, without the
> need to introduce any extra protocol exchanges.

I see that dnsop recently declined to adopt the ATR (Additional Truncated
Response) draft as a fix for paths on which IP fragmentation does not work.
See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/pvUGkBzd0D8Y9p6y020XXvxvr58
and related messages. The problem remains unsolved. One of the respondents
said "i would prefer to embrace fragmentation and fix it," which would be
ideal if it is possible; but barring that, the best proposal that I have
seen UDP fragmentation along the lines described in the udp-options draft.

Mike Heard

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email