In message <CAKr6gn2zu2n-pJMirG-seN5WX=evyquu9eqqlov-zf-rkq9...@mail.gmail.com>
, George Michaelson writes:
> --===============4023034923616370839==
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86e55011538004dff06308
>
> --047d7b86e55011538004dff06308
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:38 AM, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > ** **
> >
> > I'd like to understand the basis of these assertions. I believe what I am
> > seeing, on the edge, suggests there is in fact V6 fragmentation in both TCP
> > and UDP.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Hi George,****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > It would be helpful if you could describe:****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > **- **Where your observations are being made
> >
>
> On our own web services (www.apnic.net, and an associated whois service
> which attracts more wide ranging traffic)
>
> On 'high in the tree' DNS servers for reverse DNS, including an NS of
> in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa (note: dns transport is disjoint from the
> namespace being searched: we see queries over v6 transport to v4 domains,
> and to ccTLD we secondary)
>
> In a packet capture of 2400::/12 run in conjunction with Merit, as research
> into darknets.
>
>
> > ****
> >
> > **- **What percentage of traffic is fragmented
> >
>
> our own web: practically none.
>
> our own dns: 0.01%. in a sequence of 10 minute samples. consistently, I
> might add.
>
> the 2400::/12: around 0.25% to 1%. so more variable, but higher.
>
>
> > ****
> >
> > **- **What kinds of packets are being fragmented
> >
>
> our own DNS: port 53. little TCP.
>
> 2400::/12 capture. mostly port 53. TCP doesn't get captured in the darknet
> research. Its impossible to establish the end-to-end relationship.
>
> I am not sure I call up to 1% of something 'rare'. I'm not even sure I call
> 0.1% or 0.01% of something 'rare'. Otherwise, Since IPv6 adoption rates are
> at this class of deployment by end user, perhaps it also should be
> considered for deprecation..
>
> It really would be helpful to understand your assertion about the rarity of
> IPv6 fragmentation. I want to understand how you got to this point of view
> on IPv6 frags.
>
> -George
.58% of my IPv6 traffic in fragmented. Assuming that it is mostly UDP I
get 14% of my IPv6 UDP traffic is fragmented. Most of that traffic
is non local. I would assume most of the drops are due to PMTUD
blocking the initial fragment but letting the tail fragment through
as this machine is behind a tunnel.
Mark
ip6:
381915 total packets received
0 with size smaller than minimum
0 with data size < data length
0 with bad options
0 with incorrect version number
2213 fragments received
0 fragments dropped (dup or out of space)
48 fragments dropped after timeout
0 fragments that exceeded limit
1077 packets reassembled ok
217810 packets for this host
0 packets forwarded
93958 packets not forwardable
0 redirects sent
297719 packets sent from this host
0 packets sent with fabricated ip header
0 output packets dropped due to no bufs, etc.
5031 output packets discarded due to no route
33 output datagrams fragmented
66 fragments created
0 datagrams that can't be fragmented
0 packets that violated scope rules
93924 multicast packets which we don't join
Input histogram:
hop by hop: 132
TCP: 202894
UDP: 15103
fragment: 2213
ICMP6: 161573
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
