In message <[email protected]>, james woodyatt wri tes: > On Jul 30, 2013, at 15:25 , Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I disagree. Aside from the advice that you quote below, the draft does two > things: > > > > - It admits that there is an operational problem > > - It instructs the IETF not to make the problem worse by standardizing yet > more applications that rely upon fragmentation. > > I'm not sure how we are in disagreement, but I still sense we are disagreeing > . Somehow. > > I think the above two things are useful things for IETF to do, and they are r > easons to publish an RFC to do it. I also think it isn't a good idea to advi > se maintainers [like me] of host stacks with legacy application and transport > protocols to consider breaking their dependence on IPv6 fragmentation. (Thi > s is one of those moments where I wish I were able to express myself candidly > in a hotel lobby bar with a half-consumed beer in my hand, so you'll just ha > ve to imagine what my version of Linus's infamous "we don't break user space" > rant might sound like. I'm mellower, but it still wouldn't be pretty.) > > On a different but related note, I agree with Fred Templin and others. I sti > ll think you're missing something. > > As it stands now, this document-- as you have said you plan to amend it-- can > still be summarized as follows: "[Section 2] IETF wrote standards for IPv6 f > ragmentation and ICMPv6 path MTU discovery that many operators do not abide. > [Section 3] IETF wrote standards for a raft of transport and application prot > ocols that are broken as a result. [Section 4] Sad trombone." > > I would like to see Section 4 strengthened further, so it can be summarized l > ike so: "IETF will take the following steps to mend the damage." To be more > specific, and to repeat myself again repeatedly and for redundancy, IETF shou > ld promise-- among other things-- to do something in forthcoming drafts about > the problems Fred Templin and I have been prodding the working group to deal > with: the lack of PLPMTUD for tunnels like GRE, IPsec, et cetera, which need > to carry encapsulated minimum MTU packets over paths where neither fragmenta > tion nor RFC 1981 work. Fragmentation and/or RFC 1981 is essential to those > protocols, they are broken wherever both are unavailable, while this draft ba > sically capitulates and says, "That's everywhere you care about. Sorry about > that." Most importantly, there are no standard replacements, and no promises > ever to produce standard replacements. What is to be done about that?
I can write up my suggestion as a I-D. It provides the information stateless middleware needs to pass fragments. It also helps firewalls that decide they need to see the entire contents of packets by providing protection to their reassembly queues. > -- > james woodyatt <[email protected]> > core os networking > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
