IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Way forward for UDP option FRAGs with limited router hardwara

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Thu, 07 April 2022 21:16 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 72FC63A17C0 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 14:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.327
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 LUE9R_nT70pp for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 14:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-1.web-hosting.com (server217-1.web-hosting.com [198.54.114.226]) (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 F3AD23A180E for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 14:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
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-Transfer-Encoding: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=pSn5q8lk1QXXFWdl9OPM3Xrnjs9Nh4r0tVs3+vPrnOk=; b=IbvpMwaQDDXs4dijfcVLEPZe98 n9tvC0JDxHjCnokeF0cxHrxCdiN3/iKjGq51vwR1s0rKrKeqyPguWWRxcI3ibLhuRTDprUOayOzzr J6gzBuWgfqibmZznKiUXaaEOdPkUaGkKAiwnnUuPwtDSKqXejVctKR8ymbtAv5n7hUcJHFn4AS3bG ijNXJZhUNotE22AeNubnw8Ju1PsUAP5WJNNbUH5VzkQZlzyEI7PYSaI2h2FGP3yrQ/Ex8mIBF8y/5 rB+qzZIg5WJhsmJL0zRErMDJmZtfNeTZS0VQu2WTxcXEZ6odQf3PY53YQTY7xb6OUsGZ4jn/szqW1 P70y/eFg==;
Received: from cpe-172-114-237-88.socal.res.rr.com ([172.114.237.88]:64830 helo=smtpclient.apple) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1ncZUk-00ALAY-Op; Thu, 07 Apr 2022 17:16:51 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-77D81594-6D9F-4BF3-AE43-D4E7DBECB661"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACL_3VFQVTGECt3rJaoOg3DcON_UsUXETKVTa47k57wqJ07-+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 14:16:45 -0700
Cc: TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <032C0C62-926C-4C11-A95E-DA5A2C0B3697@strayalpha.com>
References: <CACL_3VFQVTGECt3rJaoOg3DcON_UsUXETKVTa47k57wqJ07-+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (19E258)
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/tsvwg/uAS9sgOpk36t03hjRVvVdNeBehU>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Way forward for UDP option FRAGs with limited router hardwara
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: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 21:17:04 -0000


> On Apr 7, 2022, at 12:48 PM, C. M. Heard <heard@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 11:45 AM Joe Touch wrote:
>> Ps - it might be a LOT simpler to say that limited routers should use only per fragment options. We can then leave things as they are and avoid the complexity of varying format interpretations.
> 
> I would MUCH prefer to see that than to have varying interpretations in -19 (to which I would, in fact, strongly object)

Additionally, this approach allows UDP fragmentation as BITW, which could be useful in traversing paths with f do ie stream MTU limits. 

The only downside is limiting options to per frag for constrained implementation routers, which seems like a reasonable compromise to me. 

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email