Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 23 October 2012 08:28 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
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 5B0C621F8654 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 01:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.442
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.157, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0wqDftCtms5p for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 01:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5CD721F846B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 01:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [186.134.9.99] (helo=[192.168.123.120]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <fgont@si6networks.com>) id 1TQZqY-0007da-5Y; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:28:22 +0200
Message-ID: <5086551F.6060600@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 05:28:15 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
References: <201210161245.q9GCj0i26478@ftpeng-update.cisco.com> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65E0DEDF3A2@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65E0DEDF3A2@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop@tools.ietf.org" <draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 08:28:33 -0000

Hi, Fred,

On 10/16/2012 03:20 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> This report is troubling to me. One of the unspoken tenets of
> IPv6 is that it fixes fragmentation and reassembly, for example
> by including a large-enough Identification field to avoid wrapping
> issues at high data rates (see RFC4963).

-- that's assuming the fragments don't go trough a translator...
Otherwise, the "effective" Frag-ID length is still 16 bits.

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