IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] WG Doc? draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops

otroan@employees.org Fri, 18 March 2016 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D1F712D76A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:34:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 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=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 wqh5F19O2Jv2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (cowbell.employees.org [IPv6:2001:1868:a000:17::142]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C08212D73C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C11FD7887; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; s=selector1; bh=WX/QaQ2j/nSEfikjGEoReWv5sQI=; b= mqGNN5QoCw3wQfIETD4duJBI0wif4P8AKajarhRh4+pkcE8/ZWXIklnFKsrk3uRm IIQ64fpvCZzWnJlexfadOEQIuB7bEY1iFUhQeOU8Cklgr1TFw015t1OnOO3pyW6z 09pNxqnBudD4yqUhpKFcpp6WNz8opI8kkwhCzy/ti9g=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=P0eby732mbJaDFuXAbz3Rv+sOH BQzdU8K56XXurS7AZBy2Zbt5TFNzuKlEHagcVMjd5Oyc9D/Z0NIUv6Q/Xd5VDqn7 LdnsuqXeY7qdnwxtiZxQqWPUjfzn+T/SxRSCQJJEDwtnITJ9JZTOrcAhx2jhy4S/ hX5rumWU/YCmX8i/A=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (cm-84.215.10.233.getinternet.no [84.215.10.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AF7AFD7884; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87A3D12D24BD; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 19:34:39 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6AAFB065-2937-42F6-A5B6-947368874C65"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <56EC25D2.2090101@foobar.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 19:34:38 +0100
Message-Id: <7AD49A5B-B449-408B-A8E5-B2983E01E259@employees.org>
References: <A277BE71-BD70-4AFE-97DA-F224D7DBBCB8@cisco.com> <56E6FC18.1060304@foobar.org> <CALx6S35pcSj_LLnDWJ68KwSYiHeu6FwrXTaR4N2xE6aY7MRO1A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iLbqEvsw0x4dDcA3Zy3SXKUROcQuy5nSynsL9Xi+xrZLg@mail.gmail.com> <566C93D0-62FF-4700-BC05-7F9AF12AF1BD@employees.org> <56E892B8.9030902@foobar.org> <394925FE-FAB1-4FFC-B1CF-4F64CC58F613@employees.org> <56E94275.20700@foobar.org> <3AE1DE20-D735-4262-A3FB-7C01F30BAFA2@employees.org> <56E96F74.7000206@foobar.org> <CALx6S37zP4UvCtBJsvnPN6OmDB0OQDMfRrJNy1XF0t4COStUjQ@mail.gmail.com> <56E98086.504 0209@foobar.org> <EE17974D-EDA4-4732-B29E-B2B3BC36DB86@employees.org> <56E9A16B.4030605@si6networks.com> <A2634C00-EBF8-48DA-9604-790F5213F536@employees.org> <56EA93C0.104090 4@si6networks.com> <34E270CB-AEB4-4034-99B8-1E6AB528CF67@employees.org> <d6967727-1fd6-1d43-0fbb- f665ed20e101@bogus.com> <3AE9BA3C-E7B6-4C0F-B6B4-5A737485123D@employees.org> <56EB2630.2020208@foobar.org> <9B901C5C-6BD1-4EFE-B448-AFFE9E07F972@cisco.com> <56EC25D2. 2090101@foobar.org>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/EkTipC4bqW7CUOQP3YQEvABdAko>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] WG Doc? draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 18:34:46 -0000

Nick,

> The ipv6-ehs-in-real-world draft notes that if you attach a
> fragmentation extension header to a packet, it stands a good chance of
> being dropped on the floor.  Protocols don't work when they are dropped
> by the network.  This matters for frags / ipsec.

Fragment drop probability is not significantly different between IPv6 and IPv4.

https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/ripe-atlas-packet-size-matters
  "We measure that about 8.5% to 9% of RIPE Atlas probes have problems with fragmentation in IPv4, and 10% of probes have fragmentation problems in IPv6. The IPv6 number agrees with a study that was performed by NLNetLabs in 2012, at which point the number of deployed RIPE Atlas probes was considerably smaller then now. In the meantime NLNetLabs have resumed their work on fragmentation, and the RIPE NCC is closely cooperating with this effort to better inform the Internet operations and research communities on this issue."

Which might be more of an argument against fragmentation at the network layer than EHs in particular.

Best regards,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email