Hi Fernando, > -----Original Message----- > From: Fernando Gont [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 2:45 PM > To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>; Tom Herbert > <[email protected]>; Bob Hinden > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; IESG <[email protected]>; Joel Halpern > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: 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:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 1:49 PM > >> To: Tom Herbert <[email protected]>; Bob Hinden <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > >> IESG <[email protected]>; Joel Halpern > >> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > >> [email protected] > >> Subject: 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 being generally fragile with > >>> supporting references. However, there was much discussion on the list > >>> about operational experience that demonstrates fragmentation is not > >>> fragile. > >> > >> Discussion is not measurements. Do you have measurements that suggest > >> otherwise? > >> > >> We did separate measurements, with different methodologies, and they > >> suggest the same thing. You can discuss as much as you want. But that > >> will not make fragmentation work. > >> > >> > >> > >>> In particular, we know that fragmentation with tunnels is > >>> productively deployed and has been for quite some time. So that is the > >>> counter argument to the general statement that fragmentation is > >>> fragile. With the text about tunneling included in the introduction I > >>> believe that was sufficient balance of the arguments, but without the > >>> text the reader could be led to believe that fragmentation is fragile > >>> for everyone all the time which is simply not true and would be > >>> misleading. > >> > >> "fragile" means that it fails in an uncceptably large number of cases. > >> ~30 failure rate is not acceptable. ~20% isn't, either. > > > > What if we fragment the payload packet instead of the delivery packet? > > Wouldn't that give a 0% failure rate? > > Sure. At which point you are using ip fragmentation in a limited domain, > and that's *not* the case this document is addressing, right?
As I just answered to Ole, it is not only for limited domains but also for over the open Internet. The fragmentation footprint is the same as the tunnel footprint. Fred > -- > Fernando Gont > SI6 Networks > e-mail: [email protected] > PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 > > > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
