On 02/01/2012 08:37 PM, Philip Homburg wrote: > I'm not claiming that it is not used. The Internet is a very big place, > proving > a negative is almost impossible.
At the very least, one should bother surveying implementations and/or doing some measurements... > One issue is, are atomic fragments used for anything other than stateless > IPv6/IPv4 translators? Weren't one of the pointers I provided about atomic fragments used for the DNS? > Unless I misunderstood you, you claimed there was such > usage. I can't find the message you were referring to, so I asked you for a > message ID. Instead you gave examples from another area, that seems consistent > with stateless translators. See the post by <[email protected]> in the thread about "Fragmentation-related security issues". > The second issue is that in my opinion, sending atomic fragments to such > translators is a bad idea and should be deprecated. Assuming there is no other > use for atomic fragments, You know that they say assumptions are the mother of all f* ups? > that implies to me that we should not spend any time > making it work better. Just let it die off Let's agree to disagree. . > Why is sending atomic fragments to translators a bad idea? Because the whole > IPv6 Internet has to support it (and will suffer the effects) and the use is What are "the effects"?? > I'm not saying that any existing support has to be removed. Just let it be. > But fully supporting atomic fragments everywhere will have a lot of impact, > and that is in my opinion not worth the effort. See the survey I posted. Everybody modulo NetBSD supports them. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
