I agree with Tom and Joe. I don't think the document is far from being complete in its current form, but I think addressing the points raised in these recent discussions will bring about completion.
Thanks - Fred > -----Original Message----- > From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 8:28 AM > To: Joe Touch <to...@strayalpha.com> > Cc: internet-a...@ietf.org <int-area@ietf.org>; intarea-cha...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Joe Touch <to...@strayalpha.com> wrote: > > Hi, all, > > > > I still think it would be useful for this doc to describe how tunnels > > interact with fragmentation (per draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels), which > seems to be something I’ve noted several times before. > > > > I’m also still not thrilled with the title I’d be happier with “IP > > fragmentation still not supported per requirements”, and I’d have to see > where this goes with final recommendations. > > > > But I agree *some* statement is worthwhile here. My primary concern is that > > if we’re not careful, endorsing the status quo will only > ensure nothing changes. > > > > So I sincerely hope that some of the strongest recommendations here are > > that both direct IP devices and tunnel ingress/egress > devices need to do a better job of supporting fragmentation, and that > protocol/device designers SHOULD avoid mechanisms that are > not compatible with fragmentation (e.g., NAT or DPI without doing reassembly > first). > > > I agree. > > Specifically, I think there should be a requrement that intermediate > devices don't rely on doing DPI into transport layer, or if they need > it then they should do some sort of pseudo reassmbly as Joe alludes > to. Note that section 4.4 describes the problem of of fragmentation > going through a load balancing (e.g. ECMP) where transport ports are > used in the algorithm. This is solved in IPv6 by using flow label in > the hash instead of transport layer ports, so I think that use of flow > label for this purpose should be recommended somewhere in section 7. > > Tom > > > Joe > > > >> On Jul 24, 2018, at 12:42 PM, Wassim Haddad <wassim.had...@ericsson.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> Dear all, > >> > >> We would like to start a WG adoption call for > >> draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile (“IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile”). > >> > >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-03.txt > >> > >> > >> Please indicate your preferences on the mailling list. The deadline is > >> August 10th. > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Juan & Wassim > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Int-area mailing list > >> Int-area@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Int-area mailing list > > Int-area@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
