Re: [Int-area] 回复： Request a WG adoption call for draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp

Agree with Joe and Tom. From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Touch Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 11:47 PM To: "徐小虎(义先)" Cc: Internet Area ; intarea-chairs ; draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp

Re: [Int-area] 回复： Request a WG adoption call for draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp

>Because it isn’t different. Again, see GUE variant 1. Correct. There is no reason to progress another draft that does the same thing as GUE variant 1. Fred From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Touch Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 7:55 AM To: sarik...@ieee.org Cc:

Re: [Int-area] 回复： Request a WG adoption call for draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp

The term “complexity” is not applicable to this discussion. Even if there were a priori knowledge that the encapsulated packet is an IPvX packet, the first nibble should be checked to confirm that it actually encodes the value 6/4 for sanity checking purposes. Complexity would be if there were

Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile

I agree with Tom and Joe. I don't think the document is far from being complete in its current form, but I think addressing the points raised in these recent discussions will bring about completion. Thanks - Fred > -Original Message- > From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org]

Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile

I also wonder if there is a new field of study that could stem from these observations - maybe call it "Corruption-Tolerant Networking (CTN)"? Fred ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile

Hi Mikael, > -Original Message- > From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se] > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 1:21 AM > To: Tom Herbert > Cc: Templin (US), Fred L ; internet-a...@ietf.org > ; intarea-cha...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption C

[Int-area] Document shepherd comments on 'draft-ietf-intarea-gue-05'

Hello, As document shepherd, I am required to perform a review. Please see below for initial comments, and respond on the list. Fred --- Overall: The document is well written and clear. The only thing I wonder is whether this document needs to be progressed in conjunction with GUEEXTEN or

Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile

I have an observation that I would like to see addressed in the document. Some applications (e.g., 'iperf3' and others) actually leverage IP fragmentation to achieve higher data rates than are possible using smaller (but unfragmented) whole packets. Try it - by default, iperf3 sets an 8KB UDP

Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile

. Thanks - Fred > -Original Message- > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 4:46 PM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: Wassim Haddad ; internet-a...@ietf.org > ; intarea-cha...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption C

Re: [Int-area] Document shepherd comments on 'draft-ietf-intarea-gue-05'

Hi Tom, See below for responses: Fred > -Original Message- > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 12:54 PM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: Int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Document shepherd comments on > 'd

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt

HI Fred, > -Original Message- > From: Fred Baker [mailto:fredbaker.i...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 11:42 AM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: Ron Bonica ; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt &g

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt

for this class of applications. Thanks - Fred > -Original Message- > From: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net] > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 12:53 PM > To: Templin (US), Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-0

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt

Hi Ron, There is a technique known as "Virtual Fragmentation Reassembly" where the middlebox gathers all fragments of a datagram, performs any necessary checks and then releases the fragments without reassembling them so that the destination host still has to reassemble. Is this one of the

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt

> It would be interesting to see the reall world case where > fragmentation can do better or as good (either in goodput or > performance), but I'm doubtful that exists. One of the applications I am referring to works over space links where there are long delays, but no congestion and hence

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt

Hi Tom, > -Original Message- > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 11:52 AM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: Joe Touch ; Ronald Bonica ; > int-area > Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt

Hi Fred, > -Original Message- > From: Fred Baker [mailto:fredbaker.i...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 12:06 PM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: Ron Bonica ; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt >

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt

o the code: https://sourceforge.net/projects/ion-dtn/ Thanks - Fred > -Original Message- > From: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net] > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 1:48 PM > To: Templin (US), Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-in

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt

ntation for this very reason. So, I think that the document should at least acknowledge this fact but at the same time cite [RFC4963] as evidence that the practice is dangerous. Thanks - Fred > Ron > > > > Message:

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-01.txt

I made this comment earlier, but it does not appear to have made it into this version. Some applications invoke IP fragmentation as a performance optimization, and that should be mentioned here. But, it also needs to say that RFC4963 warns against reassembly errors at high data rates.

Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile

>> Any middlebox that uses state not available in all fragments MUST reassemble >> or keep equivalent storage/state to process fragments appropriately. This statement is true without question, so the only question is what applications would produce IP fragments that need to be forwarded by a

Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03

Hi Fred, > -Original Message- > From: Fred Baker [mailto:fredbaker.i...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 10:55 AM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: Ron Bonica ; Joe Touch ; > Stewart Bryant ; int-area > ; intarea-cha...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-

Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03

: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 10:27 AM To: Templin (US), Fred L ; Joe Touch ; Stewart Bryant Cc: int-area ; intarea-cha...@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03 Fred, Without being too abrupt, there were

Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03

Hi Christian, > -Original Message- > From: Christian Huitema [mailto:huit...@huitema.net] > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 3:41 PM > To: Templin (US), Fred L ; Fred Baker > > Cc: Ron Bonica ; int-area > Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03

Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03

Ron, Also, this document needs to cite RFC4963 ("IPv4 Reassembly Errors at High Data Rates") as it is a clear commentary on the fragile nature of IP fragmentation. Thanks - Fred > -Original Message- > From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin

Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03

? Thanks - Fred From: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 10:03 AM To: Tom Herbert ; Templin (US), Fred L Cc: int-area ; intarea-cha...@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03 Fred, I am happy to add a section about LTP. However, I

Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03

Hi Ron, > In your mind, are these blocking issues? I don’t have an opinion about “blocking”, but IMHO the recommendations contribute to the completeness of the document. Thanks - Fred ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org

Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03

Hi Ron, There needs to be a new subsection in Section 6 on UDP applications that rely on IP fragmentation for greater performance. Here is proposed text: "Some UDP applications rely on IP fragmentation to achieve acceptable levels of performance. These applications use UDP datagram sizes that

Re: [Int-area] Responses to feedback on GUE presentation from IETF #103

As both an individual contributor and document shepherd, I concur with Tom's responses. There is at least one mature implementation which I use all the time, and accordingly would like to see the standards move forward. Thanks - Fred > -Original Message- > From: Int-area

Re: [Int-area] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ipv4-udpencap-eh-00.txt

Hi Tom, > -Original Message- > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@quantonium.net] > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 7:36 AM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Fwd: New Version Notification for > draft-herbert-ipv4-udpencap-eh-00.t

Re: [Int-area] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ipv4-udpencap-eh-00.txt

Hi Tom, I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to read this yet, but the AERO draft has for a long time proposed including an IPv6 fragment header as the next header in an IPv4 packet (see Appendix A of 'draft-templin-intarea-6706bis'). Is what you are proposing essentially the same thing? Thanks -

Re: [Int-area] Comments on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06

), Fred L ; Fred Baker ; Tom Herbert Cc: int-area Subject: Re: [Int-area] Comments on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06 I think pretty much anything would need that wouldn't it? - Stewart On 30/01/2019 18:29, Templin (US), Fred L wrote: Hi Stewart, Sounds like that would require some sort

Re: [Int-area] Comments on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06

Hi Stewart, >> It we really need to fragment a packet, it would be better to stick the >> fragments inside a common UDP/IP(no frag) shim. I agree. Two different approaches for UDP fragmentation that avoid IP fragmentation are currently under consideration:

Re: [Int-area] Comments on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06

Hi Stewart, Sounds like that would require some sort of encapsulation protocol and low-level code in the kernel or hardware to strip the UDP headers, right? Fred From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 10:15 AM To: Templin (US), Fred L ; Fred

Re: [Int-area] Comments on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06

. But, it still inherits the IP fragmentation shortcomings - so, maybe say that this is applicable for IPv6 but not as much for IPv4? Fred From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 10:43 AM To: Templin (US), Fred L ; Fred Baker ; Tom Herbert Cc: int

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06.txt

> -Original Message- > From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 4:40 PM > To: Joe Touch > Cc: Ron Bonica ; int-area > Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06.txt > > On Thu, Jan 31,

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06.txt

Hi Tom, > -Original Message- > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 5:17 PM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: Joe Touch ; Ron Bonica ; > int-area > Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06.txt

Hi Tom, > -Original Message- > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2019 8:15 AM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: Joe Touch ; Ron Bonica ; > int-area > Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06.t

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06.txt

To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: Joe Touch ; Ron Bonica ; > int-area > Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06.txt > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:25 AM Templin (US), Fred L > wrote: > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > ---

Re: [Int-area] Comments on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06

other type of tunnel. Thanks - Fred From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:16 AM To: Templin (US), Fred L ; Fred Baker ; Tom Herbert Cc: int-area Subject: Re: [Int-area] Comments on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-06 On 30/01/2019 18:55, T

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)

> -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; Th

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

2019 8:57 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 > ; > intarea-cha...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on > draft-ietf-intar

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; >

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...

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.

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

bly. Fred > -Original Message- > From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 4:04 PM > To: Templin (US), Fred L ; Tom Herbert > ; Bob Hinden > > Cc: int-area@ietf.org; IESG ; Joel Halpern > ; draft-ietf-intarea-fr

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Bob, Your effort is appreciated, but IMHO does not quite go far enough. Here is a proposed edit: OLD: Protocols and applications that rely on IP fragmentation will work less reliably on the Internet unless they also include mechanisms to detect that IP fragmentation isn't working

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Bob, > -Original Message- > From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2019 12:33 PM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: Bob Hinden ; int-area@ietf.org; IESG > ; Joel Halpern ; draft- > ietf-intarea-frag-frag...@ietf.org; Suresh Kris

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.

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 >

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)

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;

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-intar

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 >

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.

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

This new text from Bob and Joe's discussion looks good to me. > -Original Message- > From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2019 9:05 PM > To: int-area@ietf.org > Cc: Ron Bonica ; IESG ; > Joel Halpern ; draft-ietf- >

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Hi Tom, > -Original Message- > From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2019 11:21 AM > To: Ole Troan > Cc: Ron Bonica ; int-area@ietf.org; > IESG ; Joel Halpern > ; draft-ietf-intarea-frag-frag...@ietf.org; Suresh >

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Ole, > Sure, but that only applies to tunnels that go end to end. And any > development of new tunnel mechanisms don't need to depend on > IP fragmentation. All existing and future tunneling mechanisms that do not use IP fragmentation work only due to the good luck that most link sizes in the

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Tom, > -Original Message- > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2019 2:44 PM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: Ole Troan ; Ron Bonica > ; int-area@ietf.org; IESG > ; Joel Halpern ; > draft-ietf-intarea-frag-frag...@i

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Bob, > -Original Message- > From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 3:59 PM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: Bob Hinden ; Geoff Huston ; Joe > Touch ; int-area@ietf.org; > Suresh Krishnan > Subject: Re: [Int-area]

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Brian, > -Original Message- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 4:14 PM > To: Bob Hinden ; Templin (US), Fred L > > Cc: int-area@ietf.org; Suresh Krishnan > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Se

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

> -Original Message- > From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin (US), > Fred L > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 6:31 AM > To: Brian E Carpenter ; Bob Hinden > > Cc: int-area@ietf.org; Suresh Krishnan > Subject: Re: [Int-area]

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Ron, it is just a drop in the bucket compared with the amount of discussion since "Fragmentation Considered Harmful (1987)". But, I think we now clearly see a case where fragmentation is *required*. Thanks - Fred > -Original Message- > From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org]

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Ole, > -Original Message- > From: Ole Troan [mailto:otr...@employees.org] > Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 5:00 AM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: Ron Bonica ; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in > draft-ietf-intarea-f

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Fernando, > -Original Message- > From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fernando Gont > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 1:47 PM > To: Joe Touch ; Bob Hinden > Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-frag...@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org; IESG > ; Suresh Krishnan > Subject:

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Ole, > -Original Message- > From: Ole Troan [mailto:otr...@employees.org] > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2019 9:35 AM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: Joe Touch ; Ron Bonica > ; int-area@ietf.org; IESG > ; Joel Halpern ; > draft-ietf-intarea-frag-frag...@i

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Joe/Ole, > >>> And of course encapsulation can also exacerbate the problem > >>> by increasing packet size. All this means is that the fragmentation layer needs to take into account the size of the outer encapsulation layers that will be added and make sure its fragments do not exceed 1280 bytes

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Geoff, the 1280 MTU came from Steve Deering's November 13, 1997 proposal to the ipngwg. The exact message from the ipng archives is reproduced below. 1280 isn't just a recommendation - it's *the law*. Any link that cannot do 1280 (tunnels included) is not an IPv6 link. Fred --- >From

Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-pmtud-00.txt

Manoj, > As per section 4.2.2.7 from rfc 1812, > > “There are several fragmentation techniques in common use in the > Internet. One involves splitting the IP datagram into IP > fragments with the first being MTU sized, and the others being > approximately the same size, smaller than the MTU. “

Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-pmtud-00.txt

. Fred > -Original Message- > From: Manoj Nayak [mailto:manojna...@juniper.net] > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 9:02 PM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for > draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-pmtud-0

Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-pmtud-00.txt

; From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin (US), > Fred L > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 6:28 AM > To: Manoj Nayak ; to...@strayalpha.com > Cc: int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for > draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-

Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-pmtud-00.txt

where the original "report fragmentation" > concept > came from (Charles Lynn; 1987). > > Fred > > > -Original Message----- > > From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin > > (US), Fred L > > Sent: Friday, Novem

Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-pmtud-00.txt

invoking fragmentation; it does not want for the network to be sending it useless reports along the reverse path. Hence the RF bit. Thanks - Fred > -Original Message- > From: Manoj Nayak [mailto:manojna...@juniper.net] > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 8:15 PM > To: Templin (US), F

Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-pmtud-00.txt

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

Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-intarea-lossless-pmtud-01.txt

> A different title might be better. Call it "Report Fragmentation". Have the receiver check the RF bit to see if the sender wants fragmentation reported. If so, send the report; else, just reassemble as normal. Fred > -Original Message- > From: Int-area

Re: [Int-area] Tunnels and Fragmentation

Hi Bob, > -Original Message- > From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 9:38 AM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: Bob Hinden ; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Tunnels and Fragmentation > > Fred, > > > On

[Int-area] Tunnels and Fragmentation

Hi, two important documents in this wg have been sitting idle for a long time and perhaps it is time to start moving them forward again. The documents are: "IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile", and "IP Tunnels in the Internet Architecture":

Re: [Int-area] AD review of draft-ietf-intarea-gue

...@microsoft.com Cc: Suresh Krishnan ; Erik Kline ; Templin (US), Fred L ; Wassim Haddad ; Juan Carlos Zuniga ; int-area ; Black, David ; Gorry Fairhurst Subject: [EXTERNAL] AD review of draft-ietf-intarea-gue This message was sent from outside of Boeing. Please do not click links or open

Re: [Int-area] IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)

I can say from the AERO/OMNI experience that there is no substitute for having hands-on involvement with the actual code. Architectural concepts such as “send an update if anything changes” can be simple in theory but become difficult or completely intractable to code – and there is no way of

Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels concerns

environment because overall performance would not go many Tbps per 1 gateway. It is still possible to rely on something like Network Processor. You would do some tradeoff between cost and flexibility. A little more cost for your environment should not be the problem. Eduard From: Templin (US), Fred L

Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels concerns

utilization. Who would pay for the different hardware 34Ptbs? The numbers above could be calculated more carefully. The model could be more accurate. But No, massive fragmentation would never happen. Eduard From: Templin (US), Fred L [mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com] Sent: Thursday, March 25

Re: [Int-area] [v6ops] draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels concerns

Joe, the AERO/OMNI drafts I cited both state up front: “The OMNI interface observes the link nature of tunnels, including the Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU), Maximum Reassembly Unit (MRU) and the role of fragmentation and reassembly [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels].”

Re: [Int-area] AERO/OMNI transition to the IETF (abridged)

Fred, regarding turning ATN into an IETF working group if that is going to happen then someone else besides me is going to have to head up the effort. I have been there and done that for other working groups, and do not need to go through that pain again. So, unless someone on the ATN list wants

[Int-area] AERO/OMNI transition to the IETF (abridged)

(Trying again – previous attempt exceeded the intarea list MTU and I got back a “Message Too Big” error) Fred, thanks for posting again with Cc:’s trimmed to make it more palatable to lists. Your point about working group charters are noted; I looked at the charters and have the following

Re: [Int-area] AERO/OMNI transition to the IETF (2nd try)

use case. Fred T. fred.l.temp...@boeing.com<mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> fltemp...@acm.org<mailto:fltemp...@acm.org> From: Fred Baker [mailto:fredbaker.i...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2021 1:26 PM To: Vasilenko Eduard Cc: Templin (US), Fred L ; a...@ietf.org; 6...@i

Re: [Int-area] Side meeting follow-up: What exact features do we want from the Internet?

Joe, go read these and tell me what you think is missing because I assure you that nothing is missing: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-6man-omni/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-dtn-ltpfrag/ And please quit sending the funky html emails - they are corrupting the

Re: [Int-area] Side meeting follow-up: What exact features do we want from the Internet?

11:37 AM To: Templin (US), Fred L Cc: Dino Farinacci ; int-area@ietf.org; Dirk Trossen Subject: Re: Side meeting follow-up: What exact features do we want from the Internet? — Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist www.strayalpha.com<http://www.strayalpha.com> On Dec 3, 2021, at 10

Re: [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: Side meeting follow-up: What exact features do we want from the Internet?

the past works that you seem to hold as sacred – both from yourself and from others. What more do you want? Fred From: to...@strayalpha.com [mailto:to...@strayalpha.com] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2021 7:33 AM To: Templin (US), Fred L Cc: Dino Farinacci ; int-area@ietf.org; Dirk Trossen

Re: [Int-area] IP parcels

transport packets either work better or faster when they’re small. It’s the opposite. Joe — Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist www.strayalpha.com<http://www.strayalpha.com> On Dec 18, 2021, at 4:42 PM, Templin (US), Fred L mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>> wrote: Joe, TCP wil

Re: [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: Side meeting follow-up: What exact features do we want from the Internet?

; From: Alexandre Petrescu [mailto:alexandre.petre...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 12:53 AM > To: Templin (US), Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] Side meeting follow-up: What exact > features do we want from the Internet? > > EXT em

Re: [Int-area] IP parcels

, December 18, 2021 8:13 PM To: Templin (US), Fred L Cc: int-area@ietf.org; Wes Eddy Subject: Re: [Int-area] IP parcels HI, Fred, If you have one segment that’s less than 64K, you don’t need the parcel option at all. If you have something longer than 64K, either as a single segment or multiple

[Int-area] IP parcels

Here's one that should help with shipping, just in time for Christmas. Thanks to everyone for the past and future list exchanges. Fred -Original Message- From: I-D-Announce [mailto:i-d-announce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 5:00

Re: [Int-area] IP parcels

, December 20, 2021 4:14 PM To: Templin (US), Fred L Cc: to...@strayalpha.com; int-area@ietf.org Subject: Re: IP parcels On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 3:11 PM Templin (US), Fred L mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>> wrote: Tom, in modern reassembly it is not going to wait for the MSL for all fra

Re: [Int-area] IP parcels

ternet, that > 'parcelle' confuses me. It is not an 'IP parcelle' limited domain, but > an 'IP parcel' packet, even though it is pronounced the same. > > Le 18/12/2021 à 02:06, Templin (US), Fred L a écrit : > > Here's one that should help with shipping, just in

Re: [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: IP parcels

Yes, that is fair Dino - I should have been more respectful in addressing Tom's points. I will try to do better from my side of things. Thanks - Fred > -Original Message- > From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 6:36 AM > To:

Re: [Int-area] IP parcels

2021 1:52 PM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: to...@strayalpha.com; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: IP parcels > > EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments. > > > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 1:17 PM Templin (US), Fred L > wrote: > > > > Tom,

Re: [Int-area] IP parcels

-- > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 10:01 AM > To: Templin (US), Fred L > Cc: to...@strayalpha.com; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: IP parcels > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 6:24 AM Templin (US), Fred L > wrote: > > > &

Re: [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: IP parcels

rom: to...@strayalpha.com [mailto:to...@strayalpha.com] Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2021 11:53 AM To: Templin (US), Fred L Cc: int-area@ietf.org; Wes Eddy Subject: Re: [Int-area] IP parcels Hi, Fred (et al.), On Dec 19, 2021, at 10:21 AM, Templin (US), Fred L mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>> wrote:

Re: [Int-area] IP parcels

to reassemble. Again, GSO/GRO is nice work and much respect is due to those who made it possible. Fred From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 9:20 AM To: Templin (US), Fred L Cc: to...@strayalpha.com; int-area@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-area] [EXTERNAL

Re: [Int-area] IP parcels

L Cc: to...@strayalpha.com; int-area@ietf.org Subject: Re: IP parcels On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 12:03 PM Templin (US), Fred L mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>> wrote: Tom, sorry I will try to use my words more carefully; I am using GSO/GRO also for a UDP-based transport protocol – no

  1   2   3   >