IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Fragments [ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks]

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Wed, 28 May 2014 09:28 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 865E71A0041 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 May 2014 02:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.872
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.872 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=ham
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 vykpRFBDxonI for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 May 2014 02:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26B721A0033 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 May 2014 02:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s4S9RxHQ008158; Wed, 28 May 2014 10:27:59 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk s4S9RxHQ008158
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=201304; t=1401269280; bh=bPa3NJKoAlAGOLOef0Ag77V8d5g=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=GXCL+cEIRTBmiuGnG+0HpP2Rl+5rcqcSXHlU/W4vaX9GvqQRDAe9fdLMgY2zFxfvA QX1s4Bk0Z9y6LQ9wQOYTH7CFzUHMmsw3e1EqUcQLK0/omTvahUVSgHVs0JBkfQ0UlK S4+2pYYUNwOwbIJM7I8WjY4V763JE3oBcWdCsLPY=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id q4RARx0546019200YW ret-id none; Wed, 28 May 2014 10:28:00 +0100
Received: from [IPv6:2001:630:d0:ed04:99c4:f52:b5cc:ec1e] ([IPv6:2001:630:d0:ed04:99c4:f52:b5cc:ec1e]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s4S9RuRD028830 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 28 May 2014 10:27:57 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <5385522F.40305@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 10:27:56 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|51fc5e85b5e6c2650a1f63c2b27fdf6fq4RARx03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4BA71D7E-7A38-4327-8C7D-7E49F047CDDB@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6B9A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m261ks7xww.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840070.90801@gmail.com> <m2y4xn7wep.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840723.8010606@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1O_poMR200sjU=ttRvGaeQRkC1ZfXC0Ok4uQxdq3K=NQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2mwe37tbn.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr2t3-vxuG=iDi4biBNFpJwuzuHgfpB74i_uydWWRV7qZg@mail.gmail.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6E02@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m2fvjv7q4h.wl%randy@psg.com> <m1WpDcc-0000BMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <43BB867C-7BCA-45F6-8ADC-A49B34D6C0DC@nominum.com> <5384937A.90409@foobar.org> <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48D335AAB3D@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <20140527222313.7B12716B8D59@rock.dv.isc.org> <53851236.8020209@bogus.com> <5385522F.40305@gmail.com> <4BA71D7E-7A38-4327-8C7D-7E49F047CDDB@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
X-smtpf-Report: sid=q4RARx054601920000; tid=q4RARx0546019200YW; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=4:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: s4S9RxHQ008158
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/32d7ClQd_MK4VKYnMAOIw05smE4
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>, v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Fragments [ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 09:28:14 -0000

On 28 May 2014, at 04:04, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 28/05/2014 10:31, joel jaeggli wrote:
>> On 5/27/14, 3:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>> In message <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48D335AAB3D@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com>, Wuyts Carl writes:
>>>> And what's next ?  Stop path MTU discovery support ?  Allow Fragmentation again ?  Anything else ?
>>>> If we start mimic IPv4 fully, we're really going the wrong way .... (my personal opinion of course)
>>> Please state clearly the RFC which disallows fragmentation?
>>> Hint: There isn't one.
>> 
>> you know he's referring to intermediate fragmentation...
>> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460#section-5
>> 
>>> Fragmentation is a BASIC part of IPv6.  It is done in the sending
>>> host rather than in the core of the network but it is DONE!!!!!
>> 
>> yes.
> 
> But see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop
> for a dose of reality.

Tests that Fernando and I reported at the last IEPG show around 50% of the Alexa top 1m sites which support IPv6 also drop frags.  Tests for other types of EH are far from encouraging too.

Tim

> 
>   Brian
> 
>> 
>>>> Regs
>>>> Carl
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard
>>>> Sent: dinsdag 27 mei 2014 15:31
>>>> To: Ted Lemon; Philip Homburg
>>>> Cc: v6ops WG
>>>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks
>>>> 
>>>> On 27/05/2014 13:52, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>>>> If those ULAs happen to clash, you have to renumber at least one of them.
>>>> or use NAT.  I'm not saying this in order to throw fuel on an existing fire, but simply because this is the reality fo
>>>> r many organisations in the
>>>> ipv4 world, and I see little reason why it will change for ipv6.  The IETF can make recommendations about whether it t
>>>> hinks this is a good idea or not, but it is not productive to pretend that the elephant isn't in the room.
>>>> 
>>>> Nick
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> v6ops mailing list
>>>> v6ops@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> v6ops mailing list
>>>> v6ops@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email