Hello Fred,
Please find my thought on the following comment. Current implementation uses
certain assembly buffer size at receiver side and our proposed Idea
in the draft is not going to increase the assembly buffer size.
"There are a number of details to concern yourself with including assumptions
of the receiver's reassembly buffer size."
Regards
Manoj Nayak
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:41:18 +0000
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <[email protected]>
To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for
draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-pmtud-00.txt
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Ron, I proposed something like this a long time ago and called it
"Report Fragmentation (RF)".
I think that concept and name were also proposed an even longer time
ago in the days of
the pmtud wg back when RFCs 1063 and 1191 were under development in the
late 1980's.
The thing is, applications that want to use steady-state fragmentation
will not want to
receive RF ICMP messages. And so, there should be some way for the
sender to indicate
to the receiver that an RF ICMP is desired. I think the way I proposed
doing that was for
the sender to set the evil bit in the IPv4 header and re-purpose that
bit as the "RF bit".
But, another way could be to include an indication at connection setup
time at a layer
above IPv4 (e.g., a TCP option).
In any event, this idea has been kicked down the road before by myself
and the earlier
pmtud researchers. There are a number of details to concern yourself
with including
assumptions of the receiver's reassembly buffer size. I have quite a
large stack of
expired drafts on pmtud that you are welcome to examine to see what
ground has
already been covered.
Fred
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron
Bonica
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 9:53 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Int-area] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-pmtud-00.txt
>
> Folks,
>
> Please review and comment.
>
> Ron
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 11:48 AM
> To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; Hakan Alpan <[email protected]>;
Radon Rosborough <[email protected]>; Bradely
> Newton <[email protected]>; Miles President <[email protected]>; Manoj
Nayak <[email protected]>
> Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-pmtud-00.txt
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-pmtud-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Ron Bonica and posted to the IETF
repository.
>
> Name: draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-pmtud
> Revision: 00
> Title: Lossless Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD)
> Document date: 2019-10-29
> Group: Individual Submission
> Pages: 8
> URL:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-pmtud-00__;!8WoA6RjC81c!XifH7EcqHRKXHyGSwB3ojXm6YmKn_vYWCjgM-VDTPTEzP-khJGlb9MqM8x-YTELKJ64$
>
>
>
> Abstract:
> This document describes alternative IPv4 PMTUD procedures that do
not
> prevent IP fragmentation and do no rely on the network's ability to
> deliver ICMP Destination Unreachable messages to the source node.
> This document also defines a new ICMP message. IPv4 nodes emit
this
> new message when they reassemble a fragmented packet.
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [email protected]
>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area__;!8WoA6RjC81c!XifH7EcqHRKXHyGSwB3ojXm6YmKn_vYWCjgM-VDTPTEzP-khJGlb9MqM8x-YOVqXLNE$
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 21:43:33 -0700
From: Joe Touch <[email protected]>
To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for
draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-pmtud-00.txt
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Hi, Ron,
A few things come to mind. The first one, IMO, renders the rest
somewhat less important.
Joe
-------------
- this approach applies only to IPv4; not sure it?s worth trying to
optimize for only that case
(it requires on-path fragmentation permitted)
- this approach relies on ICMPs, so it?s as robust (or, more to the
point, not) as PMTUD
if ICMPs can find the reverse path from the dest, why wouldn?t
the routers?
i.e., isn?t the problem with ICMPs not just routers not sending
them but firewalls BLOCKING them?
(i.e., if ICMPs would work here, PMTU would have worked,
rendering this unnecessary)
- why does this doc assume the max ICMP is 576?
we?re still talking IPv4 here; it?s still 68 (that?s why only
64 bits of the orig payload are guaranteed)
(yes, your note in the end of sec 1 is relevant, but given
v4-in-v4 tunneling, it?s possible that paths might be smaller than the 576
assumption)
- why would this approach find the largest fragment through a system?
rfc1812 talks about various strategies, one of which is ?equal
sized?, which might never find the max the way you propose
> On Oct 29, 2019, at 9:53 AM, Ron Bonica
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Please review and comment.
>
> Ron
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 11:48 AM
> To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; Hakan Alpan <[email protected]>;
Radon Rosborough <[email protected]>; Bradely Newton <[email protected]>; Miles
President <[email protected]>; Manoj Nayak <[email protected]>
> Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-pmtud-00.txt
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-pmtud-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Ron Bonica and posted to the IETF
repository.
>
> Name: draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-pmtud
> Revision: 00
> Title: Lossless Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD)
> Document date: 2019-10-29
> Group: Individual Submission
> Pages: 8
> URL:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-pmtud-00__;!8WoA6RjC81c!XifH7EcqHRKXHyGSwB3ojXm6YmKn_vYWCjgM-VDTPTEzP-khJGlb9MqM8x-YTELKJ64$
>
>
>
> Abstract:
> This document describes alternative IPv4 PMTUD procedures that do
not
> prevent IP fragmentation and do no rely on the network's ability to
> deliver ICMP Destination Unreachable messages to the source node.
> This document also defines a new ICMP message. IPv4 nodes emit this
> new message when they reassemble a fragmented packet.
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [email protected]
>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area__;!8WoA6RjC81c!XifH7EcqHRKXHyGSwB3ojXm6YmKn_vYWCjgM-VDTPTEzP-khJGlb9MqM8x-YOVqXLNE$
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 14:50:40 +0000
From: Dave Thaler <[email protected]>
To: S Moonesamy <[email protected]>
Cc: Ian Farrer <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, Suresh Krishnan
<[email protected]>,
Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Last Call: <draft-thaler-iftype-reg-05.txt>
(Guidelines and Registration Procedures for Interface Types and
Tunnel
Types) to Proposed Standard
Message-ID:
<mwhpr21mb07849f41c4b229ba2d5bd914a3...@mwhpr21mb0784.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
S. Moonesamy wrote:
> RFC 2863 is a Draft Standard which states that it specifies a
protocol.
> draft-thaler-iftype-reg is about guidance for registration requests.
The write-up
> does not explain why the intended status of the document is "Proposed
Standard".
> That is an usual (intended) status when a document is about
procedures (e.g. Section 6.1).
Oops, that was not intentional, thanks for catching! The intent was to
follow the same
precedent as similar RFCs like RFC 7595, which is BCP and which I
co-authored. Hence
changed to BCP in the pending update.
> Section 6.3.1 states that "A link to some document is required". The
requirement is phrased
> in such a way that it leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Does
the person reviewing those
> (future) requests wish to deal with that?
It was already that way before.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/form/iftype__;!8WoA6RjC81c!XifH7EcqHRKXHyGSwB3ojXm6YmKn_vYWCjgM-VDTPTEzP-khJGlb9MqM8x-YMGWpzQs$
says simply:
> Reference, Internet-Draft, or Specification (required - provide link):
The policy is unchanged from Expert Review, which is weaker than
Specification Required
(which requires a permanent, public document), as elaborated on in RFC
5226.
Currently the draft is written to specifically address known issues
that have actually occurred,
so it really is documenting best current practice. So far, we have not
run into problems yet
with the flexibility as phrased.
Thanks for the review,
Dave
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area__;!8WoA6RjC81c!XifH7EcqHRKXHyGSwB3ojXm6YmKn_vYWCjgM-VDTPTEzP-khJGlb9MqM8x-YOVqXLNE$
------------------------------
End of Int-area Digest, Vol 170, Issue 13
*****************************************
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
