Fred, > On Sep 3, 2019, at 12:45 PM, Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Bob, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 9:10 AM >> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]> >> Cc: Bob Hinden <[email protected]>; Joe Touch <[email protected]>; >> Alissa Cooper <[email protected]>; Joel Halpern >> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; IESG <[email protected]>; intarea- >> [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on >> draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT) >> >> Fred, >> >>> On Sep 3, 2019, at 7:33 AM, Templin (US), Fred L >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Why was this section taken out: >>> >>>> 1.1. IP-in-IP Tunnels >>>> >>>> This document acknowledges that in some cases, packets must be >>>> fragmented within IP-in-IP tunnels [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels]. >>>> Therefore, this document makes no additional recommendations >>>> regarding IP-in-IP tunnels. >> >> This text in the Introduction was removed because, as noted in Warren Kumari >> Comment (2019-08-07 for -15), this didn’t need to be in the introduction, >> and it didn’t say very much that isn’t described later in the >> document. >> >> The normative text in Section 5.3. "Packet-in-Packet Encapsulations” is >> unchanged. I think Section 5.3 covers the topic. It includes the >> reference to [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels]. > > While I agree that both passages supply a working vector to 'intarea-tunnels', > the two strike very different tones. The former gives a balanced citation, > while > the latter calls it a "corner case" - twice! > > Whether we like it or not, fragmentation and encapsulation will continue to > be associated with each other no matter what gets documented here. So, > a respectful handoff to 'intarea-tunnels' would be appreciated.
You are talking about text in the Introduction of the document. The important substance relating to tunnels is in Section 5.3. The text is: 5.3. Packet-in-Packet Encapsulations In this document, packet-in-packet encapsulations include IP-in-IP [RFC2003], Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) [RFC2784], GRE-in-UDP [RFC8086] and Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 [RFC2473]. [RFC4459] describes fragmentation issues associated with all of the above- mentioned encapsulations. The fragmentation strategy described for GRE in [RFC7588] has been deployed for all of the above-mentioned encapsulations. This strategy does not rely on IP fragmentation except in one corner case. (see Section 3.3.2.2 of RFC 7588 and Section 7.1 of RFC 2473). Section 3.3 of [RFC7676] further describes this corner case. See [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels] for further discussion. Seems fine to me, in tone and substance. Bob > > Fred > >> Bob >> >> >>> >>> Tunnels always inflate the size of packets to the point that they may exceed >>> the path MTU even if the original packet is no larger than the path MTU. >>> And, >>> for IPv6 the only guarantee is 1280. Therefore, in order to robustly support >>> the minimum IPv6 MTU tunnels MUST employ fragmentation. >>> >>> Please put this section of text back in the document where it belongs. >>> >>> Thanks - Fred >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe Touch >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 7:06 AM >>>> To: Alissa Cooper <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Joel Halpern <[email protected]>; >>>> [email protected]; [email protected]; The IESG >> <[email protected]>; >>>> [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on >>>> draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT) >>>> >>>> Hi, all, >>>> >>>> So let me see if I understand: >>>> >>>> Alissa issues a comment. >>>> >>>> We discuss this on the list and come to a rare consensus on a way forward. >>>> >>>> The new draft is issued that: >>>> >>>> a) ignores the list consensus >>>> b) removes a paragraph not under the DISCUSS (1.1) >>>> c) now refers to vague “other documents” without citation >>>> d) most importantly: >>>> >>>> REMOVES a key recommendation that we MAY use frag where it works >>>> >>>> Asserts the false claim that IP fragmentation “will fail” in the >>>> Internet, >>>> despite citing evidence that the *majority of the time* it does work >>>> e.g., for IPv6, sec 3.9 >>>> >>>> What happened? Why is a change this substantial not reflecting the *list >>>> consensus*? >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>>>> On Sep 3, 2019, at 5:59 AM, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for >>>>> draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: No Objection >>>>> >>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>>>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> COMMENT: >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Int-area mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Int-area mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
