Subject: [Int-area] Tunnels and Fragmentation

From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 21:36:35 +0000

Hi, two important documents in this wg have been sitting idle for a long time and
perhaps it is time to start moving them forward again. The documents are: "IP
Fragmentation Considered Fragile", and "IP Tunnels in the Internet Architecture":

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels/

What has changed is that we now have  a spec for robust fragmentation over tunnels
while supporting a 9180 MTU (actually MRU) plus lossless path MTU discovery. The 
spec is known as the Overlay Multilink Network (OMNI) Interface:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-6man-omni-interface/

So, what I think needs to happen is for authors of the two intarea drafts to review
the OMNI spec and update their documents accordingly. Then, maybe we can get
a few docs published?

Thanks - Fred

---

From: Joseph Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 15:28:32 -0700

Hi, Fred,

> On Apr 16, 2020, at 2:36 PM, Templin (US), Fred L <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

As lead author of intarea-tunnels, that doc has never been held waiting for a new solution. Quite the contrary - it is complicated by yet another doc to check and include.

It would be useful to indicate whether your doc already follows the recommendations there or not, as a start.

Besides that, the only other thing that would help is someone to have the IESG stop writing “individual” submissions that I need to stop other work to deal with ;-)

Joe

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:37:48 -0700

Fred,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile/

This doc is in the RFC Editor queue waiting for another document, it’s not “sitting idle".  It is essentially done.  The referenced document (draft-fairhurst-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud) looks like it was approved by the IESG recently, it’s state is "Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed”.  Should be done soon.

Bob

> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

---

From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 17:23:35 +0000

Hi Bob,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 9:38 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Tunnels and Fragmentation
> 
> Fred,
> 
> This doc is in the RFC Editor queue waiting for another document, it’s not “sitting idle".  It is essentially done.  The referenced
> document (draft-fairhurst-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud) looks like it was approved by the IESG recently, it’s state is "Approved-
> announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed”.  Should be done soon.

Hold the phone. We now have a  robust and useful case for IPv6 fragmentation when
applied to tunnels. Can we still update frag-fragile before it gets published? Or, do we
have to wait and update it *after* it gets published? I would prefer before, because
allowing to publish as-is with knowledge that an important update is coming just
perpetuates the undeserved bad name given to fragmentation 33 years ago.

Also, what about intarea-tunnels? That one shows up as expired, but shouldn't we
dust it off for publication too (after updating to accommodate new findings)?

Thanks - Fred

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 08:38:35 -0700

Fred,

> On Apr 17, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Templin (US), Fred L <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bob,
> 

In my view, no it can not be updated.  It is past AUTH48.   We would never publish anything if we wait for anything that might happen in the future.

> dust it off for publication too (after updating to accommodate new findings)?

I can’t speak to that, as I am not an author.

Bob

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 23:02:34 -0700

> On Apr 17, 2020, at 10:29 AM, Templin (US), Fred L <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I responded to that on Thurs.

Joe