IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Wed, 28 May 2014 14:16 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
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 60E7F1A09C8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 May 2014 07:16:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.852
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 cCSMm0ai_Gyv for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 May 2014 07:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com [130.76.64.129]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 137B01A014A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 May 2014 07:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id s4SEG14B017169; Wed, 28 May 2014 07:16:01 -0700
Received: from XCH-PHX-511.sw.nos.boeing.com (xch-phx-511.sw.nos.boeing.com [10.57.37.28]) by slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id s4SEFojK016830 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Wed, 28 May 2014 07:15:51 -0700
Received: from XCH-BLV-104.nw.nos.boeing.com (130.247.25.120) by XCH-PHX-511.sw.nos.boeing.com (10.57.37.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Wed, 28 May 2014 07:15:49 -0700
Received: from XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.4.105]) by XCH-BLV-104.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.4.243]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.006; Wed, 28 May 2014 07:15:48 -0700
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Fragments [ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks]
Thread-Index: AQHPelc3tRwXeugDckevBPuYoqC0+JtWCYEQ
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 14:15:48 +0000
Message-ID: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983181B2B5F33@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
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> <EMEW3|51fc5e85b5e6c2650a1f63c2b27fdf6fq4RARx03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4BA71D7E-7A38-4327-8C7D-7E49F047CDDB@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|51fc5e85b5e6c2650a1f63c2b27fdf6fq4RARx03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4BA71D7E-7A38-4327-8C7D-7E49F047CDDB@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.247.104.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/XU9FEVZHPSqwoggT4IT68osCY10
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 14:16:19 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tim Chown
> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:28 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: Philip Homburg; v6ops WG
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Fragments [ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks]
> 
> 
> 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.

Then, how are we ever going to support tunnels over IPv6?

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email