Remember that IPsec uses IP in IP too. Shim layers won’t help it. Joe
> On Sep 3, 2019, at 2:10 PM, Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Bob, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 1:57 PM >> To: Tom Herbert <[email protected]> >> Cc: Bob Hinden <[email protected]>; Templin (US), Fred L >> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; IESG >> <[email protected]>; Joel Halpern <[email protected]>; >> [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on >> draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT) >> >> Tom, >> >>> On Sep 3, 2019, at 1:33 PM, Tom Herbert <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Bob, >>> >>> I agree with Fred. Note, the very first line of the introduction: >>> >>> "Operational experience [Kent] [Huston] [RFC7872] reveals that IP >>> fragmentation introduces fragility to Internet communication”. >> >> Yes, that text in in the first paragraph of the Introduction >>> >>> This attempts to frame fragmentation as being generally fragile with >>> supporting references. However, there was much discussion on the list >>> about operational experience that demonstrates fragmentation is not >>> fragile. In particular, we know that fragmentation with tunnels is >>> productively deployed and has been for quite some time. So that is the >>> counter argument to the general statement that fragmentation is >>> fragile. With the text about tunneling included in the introduction I >>> believe that was sufficient balance of the arguments, but without the >>> text the reader could be led to believe that fragmentation is fragile >>> for everyone all the time which is simply not true and would be >>> misleading. >> >> Yes, but we are discussing some text from the Introduction that to my read >> didn’t say anything useful so I removed it. The substantive >> text about tunneling in in Section 3.5. The Introduction, is just the >> introduction. The text was: >> >> 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. > > Yes - good text that should be retained. > >> Why is that more useful than what is in 3.5? If it’s not making a >> recommendation, why call this out in the introduction. There are lot of >> other things it doesn’t make recommendations about that aren’t in the >> Introduction either. > > Because it sets a more appropriate tone and lets the reader know from the > onset that > fragmentation and encapsulation go hand in hand. And tunnel fragmentation > avoids the > issues raised by others in this thread. > > Thanks - Fred > >> Bob >> >>> >>> Speaking of balance, the introduction also mentions that: >>> >>> "this document recommends that upper-layer protocols address the >>> problem of fragmentation at their layer" >>> >>> But the "problem" of fragmentation is in intermediate devices that >>> don't properly handle it as the draft highlights. So it seems like >>> part of addressing the problem should also be to fix the problem! That >>> is implementations should be fixed to deal with fragmentation. IMO, >>> this should be another high level recommendation that is mentioned in >>> the introduction. >> >> I am serving as document editor. This to my understanding has been through >> w.g. last call and now IESG review. >>> >>> Tom >>> >>> >>> >>> Tom >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 1:01 PM Bob Hinden <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
