On Jul 30, 2013, at 15:25 , Ronald Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> 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 reasons to publish an RFC to do it. I also think it isn't a good idea to advise maintainers [like me] of host stacks with legacy application and transport protocols to consider breaking their dependence on IPv6 fragmentation. (This 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 have 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 still 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 fragmentation and ICMPv6 path MTU discovery that many operators do not abide. [Section 3] IETF wrote standards for a raft of transport and application protocols that are broken as a result. [Section 4] Sad trombone." I would like to see Section 4 strengthened further, so it can be summarized like 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 should 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 fragmentation nor RFC 1981 work. Fragmentation and/or RFC 1981 is essential to those protocols, they are broken wherever both are unavailable, while this draft basically 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? -- james woodyatt <j...@apple.com> core os networking -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
