Re: [Int-area] Is IPv6 End-to-End? R.I.P. Architecture? (Fwd: Errata #5933 for RFC8200)

[Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I raised the issue of the limitations imposed by RFC 7112 during the course of this saga – it’s on the list of things that were bluntly and shamelessly ignored without a single comment before this document mysteriously was declared to be moving forward out of last call on the basis of some +1’s.

 

Thanks

 

Andrew

 

 

From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Joseph Touch <touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, 1 March 2020 at 05:21
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "architecture-discuss@xxxxxxx" <architecture-discuss@xxxxxxx>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@xxxxxxx>, Internet Area <int-area@xxxxxxxx>, IETF <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Is IPv6 End-to-End? R.I.P. Architecture? (Fwd: Errata #5933 for RFC8200)

 

 

On Feb 29, 2020, at 5:46 PM, Fernando Gont <fernando@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

I did look at the protocols involved here; the ingress does add headers but doesn’t appear to handle fragmentation.
That’s a non-starter if you want your packets to traverse a network because people WILL hand you 1280-byte packets, so what will you do?

FWIW, we have been insisting on this point (and others) since they first tried to push EH insertion in draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header.

THey removed it from *that* document, but they keep trying to push similar ideas in other documents.

 

Well its seems simple to me - they need a plan for fragmentation or it’s simply a nonstarter because they can’t support 1280-B packets traversing the network.

 

No amount of “but this is what the user wants” translates to “they want their packets dropped silently”.

 

Joe