Although this is close, it misses the mark a little on the issue that the app may not actually have any control here - or know how or when to reduce its MTU. That might be a minor point to add, but is worth adding. This isn't just an app layer issue.
Joe On 9/5/2019 4:45 PM, Ron Bonica wrote: > Bob, > > I think that this is a close to consensus as we are going to get. > > Ron > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Hinden <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 2:29 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Bob Hinden <[email protected]>; Alissa Cooper <[email protected]>; > IESG <[email protected]>; Joel Halpern <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Suresh > Krishnan <[email protected]> > Subject: 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]. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
