Fred, > On Sep 5, 2019, at 11:57 AM, Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Bob, > > Your effort is appreciated, but IMHO does not quite go far enough. Here is > a proposed edit:
Thanks! > > OLD: > Protocols and applications that rely on IP > fragmentation will work less reliably on the Internet unless they > also include mechanisms to detect that IP fragmentation isn't working > reliably. > > NEW: > Protocols and applications that rely on IP > fragmentation will work less reliably on the Internet unless they > also include mechanisms to detect that IP fragmentation isn't working > reliably, or encapsulate their fragments in protocol headers that can > traverse fragment-dropping middleboxes. I am not sure we want or should add specific mechanisms here. Encapsulation is one approach, but there are others. Bob > > Thanks - Fred > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden >> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2019 11:29 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: IESG <[email protected]>; Joel Halpern <[email protected]>; >> [email protected]; Suresh Krishnan >> <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> Subject: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in >> draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile >> >> Hi, >> >> Based on the discussion, I would like to propose to see if this will resolve >> the issues raised. It attempts to cover the issues raised. >> >> The full section 6.1 is included below, but only the last sentence in the >> second paragraph changed. >> >> Please review and comment. >> >> Thanks, >> Bob >> >> >> >> 6.1. For Application and Protocol Developers >> >> Developers SHOULD NOT develop new protocols or applications that rely >> on IP fragmentation. When a new protocol or application is deployed >> in an environment that does not fully support IP fragmentation, it >> SHOULD operate correctly, either in its default configuration or in a >> specified alternative configuration. >> >> While there may be controlled environments where IP fragmentation >> works reliably, this is a deployment issue and can not be known to >> someone developing a new protocol or application. It is not >> recommended that new protocols or applications be developed that rely >> on IP fragmentation. Protocols and applications that rely on IP >> fragmentation will work less reliably on the Internet unless they >> also include mechanisms to detect that IP fragmentation isn't working >> reliably. >> >> Legacy protocols that depend upon IP fragmentation SHOULD be updated >> to break that dependency. However, in some cases, there may be no >> viable alternative to IP fragmentation (e.g., IPSEC tunnel mode, IP- >> in-IP encapsulation). In these cases, the protocol will continue to >> rely on IP fragmentation but should only be used in environments >> where IP fragmentation is known to be supported. >> >> Protocols may be able to avoid IP fragmentation by using a >> sufficiently small MTU (e.g. The protocol minimum link MTU), >> disabling IP fragmentation, and ensuring that the transport protocol >> in use adapts its segment size to the MTU. Other protocols may >> deploy a sufficiently reliable PMTU discovery mechanism >> (e.g.,PLMPTUD). >> >> UDP applications SHOULD abide by the recommendations stated in >> Section 3.2 of [RFC8085]. >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
