Fred,
Can you provide a reference to one of those applications? If so, I would be
glad to add it to the draft.
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Templin (US), Fred L <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 11:56 AM
> To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ron
> > Bonica
> > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 8:14 AM
> > To: int-area@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action:
> > draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt
> >
> > Hi Fred,
> >
> > Thanks for reviewing yet another version of the draft. But I would like to
> push back ever-so-gently on your proposed edit.
> >
> > We agree that the draft does not and should not propose the
> > deprecation of IP Fragmentation. We also agree that IP tunnels require
> fragmentation. And because one critical application requires fragmentation,
> we cannot deprecate it.
> >
> > Yes, there may be other applications that require fragmentation. IPERF
> > may be one of them. But we don't need to mention it because we have
> already made our case against deprecation. Mentioning every application that
> requires fragmentation is over-kill.
>
> OK, but iperf3 is proof that some applications may see greater performance by
> intentionally invoking IP fragmentation. I know of at least one other
> application (a real application; not a test app) that leverages IP
> fragmentation
> for this very reason. So, I think that the document should at least
> acknowledge
> this fact but at the same time cite [RFC4963] as evidence that the practice is
> dangerous.
>
> Thanks - Fred
>
> > Ron
> >
> >
> > > Message: 2
> > > Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:22:47 +0000
> > > From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>
> > > To: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action:
> > > draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt
> > > Message-ID:
> > > <554d668a29934ecf9fdf95d77d1cca52@XCH15-06-
> > > 08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> > >
> > > I made this comment earlier, but it does not appear to have made it
> > > into this version.
> > > Some applications invoke IP fragmentation as a performance
> > > optimization, and that should be mentioned here. But, it also needs
> > > to say that RFC4963 warns against reassembly errors at high data rates.
> > >
> > > Suggestion is to add the following to the introduction:
> > >
> > > "While this document identifies issues associated with IP
> > > fragmentation, it does not recommend deprecation. Some applications
> > > (e.g., [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels]) require IP fragmentation. Others
> > > (e.g.,
> > > [IPERF3]) invoke IP fragmentation as a performance optimization, but
> > > can incur reassembly errors at high data rates [RFC4963]."
> > >
> > > Thanks - Fred
> > > fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
> > >
> > *************************************
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Int-area mailing list
> > Int-area@ietf.org
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail
> > man_listinfo_int-2Darea&d=DwIFAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voD
> > TXcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-
> AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=8qGsBOSZ_rXQ-
> >
> C1vm92o4jL3pkSBS96pwpQOnO0QM3g&s=oHN6iDxb9N6hlOa5n2zw_gl6QF
> Qs-1Aq8CwJ2
> > pgKaq8&e=
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
