>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 16:46:16 -0700
> From: Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com>
> To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>
> Cc: Wassim Haddad <wassim.had...@ericsson.com>,
> "internet-a...@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>,
> "intarea-cha...@ietf.org" <intarea-cha...@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered
> Fragile
> Message-ID:
> <CALx6S354kjyNaMYDo-XgsuiijapONC4GH+ozH8AXw-
> tQr0Ci=a...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Templin (US), Fred L
> <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> wrote:
> > I have an observation that I would like to see addressed in the
> > document. Some applications (e.g., 'iperf3' and others) actually
> > leverage IP fragmentation to achieve higher data rates than are possible
> using smaller (but unfragmented) whole packets.
> >
> > Try it - by default, iperf3 sets an 8KB UDP packet size and allows
> > packets to fragment across paths that support only smaller MTUs. I
> > have seen iperf3 exercise IP reassembly at line rates on high-speed links,
> i.e., it shows that reassembly at high rates is feasible.
> >
> > We know from RFC4963 that there are dangers for reassembly at high
> > rates, but there are applications such as iperf3 that ignore the
> > "SHOULD NOT" and leverage IP fragmentation anyway. So, should the
> "SHOULD NOT" have an asterisk?
> >
Fred, Tom,
The draft doesn't intend to forbid fragmentation in all cases. It is perfectly
appropriate some scenarios.
I will add clarifying text in the next version.
Ron
> Fred,
>
> My reading of the draft is that IP fragmentation is fragile on the open
> Internet and should be avoided for applications that run over the Internet.
> That doesn't mean that fragmentation should be avoided in all use cases. In
> particular, if fragmentation is used in a closed network with low loss and has
> appropriate security measures in place, then it can be beneficial. I suspect
> that describes the network that your're running iperf in. If this
> interpretation
> of the draft's intent is correct, maybe there could be some words to clarify
> that.
>
> Tom
>
> > Thanks - Fred
> >
************************************
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
