Hi Joe, > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 1:22 PM > To: Templin, Fred L <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: IPv6 fragmentation for IPv4 > > > > On 5/23/2017 1:13 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > > Here's another think - since the IPv6 Frag Header already has a > > 32-bit IP ID that we are using for fragmentation, and since we > > are asking the IPv4 header to set DF=1, the 16-bit IP ID field in > > the IPv4 header is available for use as a flow field - right? > Except for all those devices that look only at the IPv4 header. In that > case, redefining the IPv4 header this way could interfere with > mechanisms to manage NAT traversal based based on ID context.
What was it that your document said about the setting of IP ID when DF=1? Shouldn't it be OK to set the ID to some value of our own choosing, e.g., a hash of the 5-tuple of the original packet? > Finally, how do you know when you can even use this? Legacy devices > could choke on such packets - whether routers or endpoints. That is a real concern, yes. For the same reason that new transports like SCTP and DCCP have been proven difficult to deploy. With this proposal, ip-proto-44 would be just another protocol that middleboxes block. But, maybe it would work in private internetworks such as an enterprise network. Thanks - Fred > Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
