Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

On 09-Sep-19 16:11, Joe Touch wrote: > > >> On Sep 8, 2019, at 8:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter > > wrote: >> >> On 09-Sep-19 12:15, Joe Touch wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 8, 2019, at 1:26 PM, Brian E Carpenter >>>

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

> On Sep 8, 2019, at 8:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: > > On 09-Sep-19 12:15, Joe Touch wrote: >> >> >>> On Sep 8, 2019, at 1:26 PM, Brian E Carpenter >> > wrote: >>> > > Wouldn't that require the middle box to become an architectural

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

On 09-Sep-19 12:15, Joe Touch wrote: > > >> On Sep 8, 2019, at 1:26 PM, Brian E Carpenter > > wrote: >> Wouldn't that require the middle box to become an architectural element? >>> >>> Yes, but not just “an” (one): >>> >>> Touch, J: Middlebox Models

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

> On Sep 8, 2019, at 1:26 PM, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: > >>> >>> Wouldn't that require the middle box to become an architectural element? >> >> Yes, but not just “an” (one): >> >> Touch, J: Middlebox Models Compatible with the Internet. USC/ISI >> (ISI-TR-711), 2016. (Type: Technical

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

On 09-Sep-19 06:06, Joe Touch wrote: > > >> On Sep 8, 2019, at 6:16 AM, Fred Baker > > wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Sep 5, 2019, at 5:31 PM, Tom Herbert >> > wrote: >>> >>> I really wish the IAB would look at the issues of wide >>> spread

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

> On Sep 5, 2019, at 5:31 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: > > I really wish the IAB would look at the issues of wide > spread middlebox non-conformance Wouldn't that require the middle box to become an architectural element? ___ Int-area mailing list

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 1:57 PM Fred Baker wrote: > > > > Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... > > It was taken out in response to Warren Kumari’s comment that it was out of > place and already covered in a section later in the document. If it is added > back in, it

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Fernando, The ingress uses IPv6 fragmentation per the letter of RFC8200 and conveys those fragments over the underlying internetwork (e.g., the Internet) to the egress which then gets to reassemble. If there are multiple independent internetworks lined up in succession, there may be many

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

On 5/9/19 17:31, Tom Herbert wrote: > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 5:34 PM Fernando Gont wrote: >> >> On 4/9/19 18:26, Templin (US), Fred L wrote: >>> Hi Ole, >>> -Original Message- From: Ole Troan [mailto:otr...@employees.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 7:37 AM To:

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 5:34 PM Fernando Gont wrote: > > On 4/9/19 18:26, Templin (US), Fred L wrote: > > Hi Ole, > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Ole Troan [mailto:otr...@employees.org] > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 7:37 AM > >> To: Templin (US), Fred L > >> Cc: Bob

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

> On Sep 4, 2019, at 10:34 AM, Ron Bonica wrote: > > If we follow the second path, we will need to figure out what to do with this > document. Options are: > > - Abandon it > - Progress it as it was approved by the IESG and ignoring all contrary > opinions > - Progress it as it was approved

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

On 4/9/19 16:46, Templin (US), Fred L wrote: > Hi Fernando, > >> -Original Message- >> From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 2:45 PM >> To: Templin (US), Fred L ; Tom Herbert >> ; Bob Hinden >> >> Cc: int-area@ietf.org; IESG ; Joel

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

On 4/9/19 16:43, Templin (US), Fred L wrote: [...] > >> albeit that the tunnel tail now has to reassemble. At speeds typically >> much higher than a typical end host. > > Using iperf3, I can show fragmentation and reassembly at near line-rate on > 10Gbps > Ethernet gear. That seems pretty good

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

IMO, it belongs back with a forward reference to the detail. To do otherwise buries at least part of the lead here - as you note in another response - to not mistake this document for a step towards deprecation. Joe On 2019-09-04 10:57, Fred Baker wrote: > Sent using a machine that

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

On 2019-09-04 11:05, Fred Baker wrote: > I did some of the edits, so I'll respond. Alissa issues a comment. We also > got several other comments over the summer. This update responds to a set of > comments. I'm on vacation and mostly out of contact, so my co-authors will > need to proceed as

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

I did some of the edits, so I’ll respond. Alissa issues a comment. We also got several other comments over the summer. This update responds to a set of comments. I’m on vacation and mostly out of contact, so my co-authors will need to proceed as appropriate. But this was NOT a matter of one

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... It was taken out in response to Warren Kumari’s comment that it was out of place and already covered in a section later in the document. If it is added back in, it probably belongs in that section, not the introduction. > On Sep

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Hi Ron, No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Simply shorten Section 5.3 to the following: > 5.3. Packet-in-Packet Encapsulations > > This document acknowledges that in some cases, packets must be > fragmented within IP-in-IP tunnels. Therefore, this document makes no >

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Folks, We appear to be rehashing issues that have been debated passionately before. And I think that we have the following options: 1) Continue to debate, as if we might someday converge on consensus. 2) Agree to disagree. If we follow the first path, we will need a continuity plan. As those

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

> -Original Message- > From: Ole Troan [mailto:otr...@employees.org] > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 8:40 AM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: Bob Hinden ; Tom Herbert ; > Joel Halpern ; draft- > ietf-intarea-frag-frag...@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area]

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Hi Bob, > -Original Message- > From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 8:29 AM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: Bob Hinden ; Tom Herbert ; > int-area@ietf.org; IESG ; Joel > Halpern ; > draft-ietf-intarea-frag-frag...@ietf.org;

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

On 2019-09-04 08:29, Bob Hinden wrote: > This text has been through IETF last call and IESG review, and as far as I > can tell is factually correct. Unless we want to repeat that, better to not > remove it in my view. Repeating it up front was through WG and IETF last call. If IESG

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

On 2019-09-04 07:23, Templin (US), Fred L wrote: > Bob, > ... > Paragraph #1 beginning "This document acknowledges" looks good, but then > why include paragraphs #2 and #3 since 'intarea-tunnels' is the place to > discuss > IP-in-IP encapsulation. So, why not shorten Section 5.3 and have it as

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Fred, >> Is that not the exact definition of outer fragmentation? > > No. I am talking about outer header (OH) followed by tunnel header (TH) > followed > by inner packet (IP). Recipe: > > 1) wrap the IP in a TH to create a tunnel packet (TP) > 2) fragment the TP > 3) encapsulate each

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Fred, > On Sep 4, 2019, at 7:23 AM, Templin (US), Fred L > wrote: > > Bob, > >> -Original Message- >> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 5:08 PM >> To: Templin (US), Fred L >> Cc: Bob Hinden ; Tom Herbert ; >> int-area@ietf.org; IESG

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Hi Ole, > -Original Message- > From: Ole Troan [mailto:otr...@employees.org] > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 7:37 AM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: Bob Hinden ; Tom Herbert ; > Joel Halpern ; draft- > ietf-intarea-frag-frag...@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re:

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Fred, I removed the IESG from this list, as we seem to have drifted into a more general fragmentation discussion as opposed to discussing the exact changes to this draft. Why is that more useful than what is in 3.5? If it’s not making a recommendation, why call this out in the

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Bob, > -Original Message- > From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 5:08 PM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: Bob Hinden ; Tom Herbert ; > int-area@ietf.org; IESG ; Joel > Halpern ; > draft-ietf-intarea-frag-frag...@ietf.org;

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Hi Fernando, > -Original Message- > From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 2:45 PM > To: Templin (US), Fred L ; Tom Herbert > ; Bob Hinden > > Cc: int-area@ietf.org; IESG ; Joel Halpern > ; draft-ietf-intarea-frag-frag...@ietf.org; >

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Hi Ole, > -Original Message- > From: Ole Troan [mailto:otr...@employees.org] > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 2:22 PM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: Bob Hinden ; Tom Herbert ; > Joel Halpern ; draft- > ietf-intarea-frag-frag...@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org; IESG ; >

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

On 4/9/19 00:34, Tom Herbert wrote: > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 1:49 PM Fernando Gont wrote: >> >> On 3/9/19 23:33, Tom Herbert wrote: >>> Bob, >>> [] >> "fragile" means that it fails in an uncceptably large number of cases. >> ~30 failure rate is not acceptable. ~20% isn't, either. >> > Okay,

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Fred, > On Sep 3, 2019, at 2:10 PM, Templin (US), Fred L > wrote: > > Bob, > >> -Original Message- >> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 1:57 PM >> To: Tom Herbert >> Cc: Bob Hinden ; Templin (US), Fred L >> ; int-area@ietf.org; IESG

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

+1 (agreeing with Tom and Fred) on retaining this text: > >This document acknowledges that in some cases, packets must be > >fragmented within IP-in-IP tunnels [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels]. > >Therefore, this document makes no additional recommendations > >regarding IP-in-IP

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

On 4/9/19 00:02, Templin (US), Fred L wrote: > Fernando, > >> -Original Message- >> From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 1:49 PM >> To: Tom Herbert ; Bob Hinden >> Cc: Templin (US), Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org; >> IESG ; Joel Halpern >>

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 1:49 PM Fernando Gont wrote: > > On 3/9/19 23:33, Tom Herbert wrote: > > Bob, > > > > I agree with Fred. Note, the very first line of the introduction: > > > > "Operational experience [Kent] [Huston] [RFC7872] reveals that IP > > fragmentation introduces fragility to

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Fred, >> Why is that more useful than what is in 3.5? If it’s not making a >> recommendation, why call this out in the introduction. There are lot of >> other things it doesn’t make recommendations about that aren’t in the >> Introduction either. > > Because it sets a more appropriate tone

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Remember that IPsec uses IP in IP too. Shim layers won’t help it. Joe > On Sep 3, 2019, at 2:10 PM, Templin (US), Fred L > wrote: > > Bob, > >> -Original Message- >> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 1:57 PM >> To: Tom Herbert >>

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Bob, > -Original Message- > From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 1:57 PM > To: Tom Herbert > Cc: Bob Hinden ; Templin (US), Fred L > ; int-area@ietf.org; IESG > ; Joel Halpern ; > draft-ietf-intarea-frag-frag...@ietf.org;

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Fernando, > -Original Message- > From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 1:49 PM > To: Tom Herbert ; Bob Hinden > Cc: Templin (US), Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org; IESG > ; Joel Halpern > ; draft-ietf-intarea-frag-frag...@ietf.org; >

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Tom, > On Sep 3, 2019, at 1:33 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: > > Bob, > > I agree with Fred. Note, the very first line of the introduction: > > "Operational experience [Kent] [Huston] [RFC7872] reveals that IP > fragmentation introduces fragility to Internet communication”. Yes, that text in in the

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

On 3/9/19 23:33, Tom Herbert wrote: > Bob, > > I agree with Fred. Note, the very first line of the introduction: > > "Operational experience [Kent] [Huston] [RFC7872] reveals that IP > fragmentation introduces fragility to Internet communication". > > This attempts to frame fragmentation as

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Bob, I agree with Fred. Note, the very first line of the introduction: "Operational experience [Kent] [Huston] [RFC7872] reveals that IP fragmentation introduces fragility to Internet communication". This attempts to frame fragmentation as being generally fragile with supporting references.

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Bob, > -Original Message- > From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 9:10 AM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: Bob Hinden ; Joe Touch ; > Alissa Cooper ; Joel Halpern > ; draft-ietf-intarea-frag-frag...@ietf.org; > int-area@ietf.org; IESG ;

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Fernando, RFC7872 seems to document the state of the Internet at a given point of time. I do not know if things have gotten better or worse for extension headers in the Internet since that time, but I believe that support for extension headers in the Internet must become more robust.

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019, 8:58 AM Fernando Gont wrote: > On 3/9/19 18:41, Templin (US), Fred L wrote: > > > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 7:50 AM > >> To: Templin (US), Fred L ; Joe Touch < >

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

On 3/9/19 18:39, Tom Herbert wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019, 8:31 AM Fernando Gont > wrote: > > On 3/9/19 17:33, Templin (US), Fred L wrote: > > Why was this section taken out: > >  > >> 1.1.  IP-in-IP Tunnels > >>      > >>    This

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

> -Original Message- > From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 7:50 AM > To: Templin (US), Fred L ; Joe Touch > ; Alissa Cooper > Cc: Joel Halpern ; > draft-ietf-intarea-frag-frag...@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org; The IESG > ; >

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019, 8:31 AM Fernando Gont wrote: > On 3/9/19 17:33, Templin (US), Fred L wrote: > > Why was this section taken out: > > > >> 1.1. IP-in-IP Tunnels > >> > >>This document acknowledges that in some cases, packets must be > >>fragmented within IP-in-IP tunnels

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

On 3/9/19 17:33, Templin (US), Fred L wrote: > Why was this section taken out: > >> 1.1. IP-in-IP Tunnels >> >>This document acknowledges that in some cases, packets must be >>fragmented within IP-in-IP tunnels [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels]. >>Therefore, this document

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Why was this section taken out: > 1.1. IP-in-IP Tunnels > >This document acknowledges that in some cases, packets must be >fragmented within IP-in-IP tunnels [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels]. >Therefore, this document makes no additional recommendations >regarding

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Hi, all, So let me see if I understand: Alissa issues a comment. We discuss this on the list and come to a rare consensus on a way forward. The new draft is issued that: a) ignores the list consensus b) removes a paragraph not under the DISCUSS (1.1) c) now refers to vague “other documents”