Hi Mark, Thanks for this good empirical data!
I would like to verify your assertion that most of the IPv6 fragment carry UDP. Do you have any way to be sure? Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...@isc.org] > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 9:53 PM > To: George Michaelson > Cc: Ronald Bonica; ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg > Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-frag- > deprecate-00.txt > > > 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 <rbon...@juniper.net> > 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: ma...@isc.org > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------