IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Mon, 29 October 2012 13:44 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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 0DE2D21F8660 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 06:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 xS4foXVzIIx2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 06:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B1921F8646 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 06:44:01 -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 q9TDhxQC013296 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:44:00 GMT
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk q9TDhxQC013296
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=200903; t=1351518240; bh=bfFEZ/afFGfp1tr5GcP0jDdfdMI=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:References:To; b=ZGMHtlXj3kIHQrIRPdaFPGG6SxYUA5rxIO3fHZGwamGsCa38llGPqkIixLaZ/S87/ mJRVh/H7C1qfaOoHRj73phgu13ddTJSqmUxkZNyDWaAA24x67aIehu+uhgFRx7trYv 8LAps4JgtVwGxLGnTfPZPv55NHCr8AA3L+A29n0M=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk ([2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:401]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:68da]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id o9SDhx0430601441HP ret-id none; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:44:00 +0000
Received: from ip-205-081.eduroam.soton.ac.uk (ip-205-081.eduroam.soton.ac.uk [152.78.205.81]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9TDhtLx008510 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:43:55 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <508E3D6E.60602@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:44:03 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|737af1bec8b64a2d66704e9f48b97a9bo9SDhx03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|0BA41720-DC11-46A9-93C7-50B8F33EBBD3@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <201210161245.q9GCj0i26478@ftpeng-update.cisco.com> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65E0DEDF5AB@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <BB219517-B488-4777-AE9C-35C57BE91263@kumari.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210171337470.7337@shell4.bayarea.net> <AC530E99-4054-4B0A-9B5C-30F9EF4A530C@kumari.net> <20121018223121.28B2C2A0041D@drugs.dv.isc.org> <50812F87.5000107@inex.ie> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65E0DF5C66F@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <5085319B.60707@inex.ie> <CAKD1Yr2qDsM6cCPapRmKuWw7SG-cuMd9PuiBD7ineqj7Bp4+Xw@mail.gmail.com> <8C4093E0-4031-4057-9B96-3738A5A48D2D@merike.com> <1351154487.78754.YahooMailNeo@web32504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <CAKD1Yr1xDC7BefRyaHHKfw9THRkyQWwHS5P05_uWTOV539uS2w@mail.gmail.com> <508A876F.6070503@si6networks.com> <1351454911.47361.YahooMailNeo@web32501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <CAKD1Yr1CmXV_m4X7Rgdvuj6bXaiaai1rsaosJt5-_m2ChJjgSw@mail.gmail.com> <508E36DA.5090501@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1eWJOZiLShUCoknJNth4ZL6vS0s4Vtwkz8errkFesLqw@mail.gmail.com> <508E3D6E.6060! 2@gmail.com> <0BA41720-DC11-46A9-93C7-50B8F33EBBD3@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: V6 Ops <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=o9SDhx043060144100; tid=o9SDhx0430601441HP; client=relay,forged,no_ptr,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=1:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: q9TDhxQC013296
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
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: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:44:03 -0000

On 29 Oct 2012, at 08:25, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 29/10/2012 08:02, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
>> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I think the real problem statement is "some operators filter some extension
>>> headers, including fragments, and some operators filter ICMP PTB."
>>> 
>> 
>> I think we can get to consensus as a group that filtering PTB is a bad idea
>> though, right?
> 
> I would hope so, and there's already an RFC that covers it, but you did suggest
> PMTUD as an alternative to fragmentation. We'd better issue a *complete* advisory.

This, along with Lorenzo's other three points, could be that complete advisory? The same advisory can target different stakeholders.

Tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email