Re: [IETF] Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05.txt (Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field) to Proposed Standard

2012-06-05 Thread Joe Touch

Kuari wrote:

On Jun 3, 2012, at 12:34 AM, C. M. Heard wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012, Masataka Ohta wrote:

Existing routers, which was relying on ID uniqueness of atomic
packets, are now broken when they fragment the atomic packets.



Such routers were always broken.  An atomic packet has DF=0 and any
router fragmenting such a packet was and is non-compliant with
the relevant specifications (RFCs 791, 1122, 1812).



Sorry, but no….

Not following the RFC != broken. Not following the RFC == non-compliant.

There are numerous places where implementations do not follow the
specs for various reasons, ranging from simply not bothering, through
philosophical differences to customers paying for non-compliant feature X.


Vendors that choose to ignore (IMO, that's violates) the specs 
rarely make clear their rationale or the consequences to users.


Regardless, as has been noted, the routers were already non-compliant 
when they ignored the flags of an atomic datagram.


Joe


Re: [IETF] Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05.txt (Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field) to Proposed Standard

2012-06-03 Thread Warren Kumari

-- 
No man is an island, But if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie them 
together, they make a pretty good raft.
--Anon.


On Jun 3, 2012, at 12:34 AM, C. M. Heard wrote:

 On Sat, 2 Jun 2012, Masataka Ohta wrote:
 Existing routers, which was relying on ID uniqueness of atomic
 packets, are now broken when they fragment the atomic packets.
 
 Such routers were always broken.  An atomic packet has DF=0 and any 
 router fragmenting such a packet was and is non-compliant with 
 the relevant specifications (RFCs 791, 1122, 1812).

Sorry, but no….

Not following the RFC != broken. Not following the RFC == non-compliant.

There are numerous places where implementations do not follow the specs for 
various reasons, ranging from simply not bothering, through philosophical 
differences to customers paying for non-compliant feature X.

Sorry, I'm in a somewhat pedantic mood, and I saw a soapbox, so I climbed up on 
it…

W

 
 //cmh