IPv4 Reassembly Errors at High Data Rates
RFC 4963

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert Yes

(David Kessens; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes

Yes ()
No email
send info

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -)
No email
send info

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -)
No email
send info

(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2006-12-13 for -)
No email
send info
5.  Implications
...
   IPv6 is less vulnerable to this type of problem, since its fragment
   header contains a 32-bit identification field [RFC2460].  Mis-
   association will only be a problem at packet rates 65536 times higher
   than for IPv4.

Should note that IPv6 fragmentation only occurs e2e and there is no
DF bit; hence errors caused by non-respect of the DF bit cannot occur.

From Gen-ART reviewer Robert Sparks:
"Some comments from a personal preference point-of-view:

Consider changing the title to something describing the results  directly - make this more likely to find when someone in the future uses the rfc-index to find issues  with reassembly.

Tuning the abstract to reflect the results rather than the  consequenses of the results might also help draw eyes to the document, but I'm not sure how many people  filter/choose documents based on the abstract text. On the other hand, a lot of the people you  probably want to reach have been
de-sensitized to fragmentation/congestion klaxons - your message  might get out faster without them. "

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2006-12-14 for -)
No email
send info
I agree with Dave Kessens that the title and abstract need to be changed to make it clear that this is really only talking about IP Fragmentation problems for extremely high bandwidth communication (which may indeed be quite important for supercomputer centers, but are not applicable for normal Internet users). However, I don't see any need to enter a "discuss" because Dave already has one for the same issue and I agree with Dave's proposed solution of changing the title and abstract to make it clear what the scope of this document actually is.

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info