Joe Touch wrote:
RFC2765 specifies that translators can merely copy the
low-order bits of the field.
Yes, but this is not compatible with RFC791.
Then, which should we revice? RFC791, RFC2765 or both?
Without such a decision, there is no point to publish something
based on RFC791 and is not compatible with RFC2765.
The case above occurs only when the source gets back a "packet too big"
message with a desired MTU less than 1280.
which means RFC2460 expects it.
Note that this might never
happen, in which case there would never be any Fragment header.
If you can assume so, let's better assume that accidental ID
match never happen and we all can be very happy.
However, even when it does happen, there is no instruction above about
how to construct the header that is compliant with RFC791.
That is the problem. That is, if you insist on RFC791 as is, not
enough is specified on how to generate IPv6 ID.
Further, the source might already be inserting the fragmentation header
(e.g., on a 2KB packet).
Thus, there can be only one way (the one in RFC2765) to map IPv6
ID to IPv4 ID
Or, if multiple IPv6 fragments with same ID use different IPv4
translators with different mapping algorithm, each IPv6
fragments will have different IPv4 IDs.
There's no instruction in how fragment headers
are constructed in general that complies with RFC791.
Is it a problem of RFC791 or RFC2460/2765?
Simply using the low 16 bits is not correct. In particular, RFC2460
suggests that its 32-bit counter can wrap once a minute, and that only
one such counter might be needed for an endpoint for all connections.
Never mind.
IPv6 specification is not self consistent at all.
Or, are you saying RFC2460 and RFC2765 violate RFC791?
Yes.
Then, as fixing RFC2460 is politically impossible, we must
abandone IPv6 and live with IPv4 forever.
This document updates RFC791, but does not fix either RFC2460 or
RFC2765. This document does not make any statements about how IPv6
generates its IDs.
You draft says:
This document updates the specification of the IPv4 ID field to more
closely reflect current practice, and to include considerations taken
into account during the specification of the similar field in IPv6.
but, "the specification of the similar field in IPv6" is, in
your opinion, incomplete, let's finish it first, only after
which you can revise your draft "to include considerations
taken into account during the specification of the similar
field in IPv6."
More specifically, for example, the following statement in your draft:
The latter case is relevant only for
IPv6 datagrams sent to IPv4 destinations to support subsequent
fragmentation after translation to IPv4.
is incorrect because NAT646 refer RFC2765.
For another example,
Finally, the IPv6 ID field is
32 bits, and required unique per source/destination address pair for
IPv6,
is, in your opinion, violation of RFC791.
As I stated above, RFC2460 guarantees "a suitable Identification
value" for IPv4 ID is there in IPv6 fragmentation ID.
Not the way I interpret the text, especially because there are other
ways to generate IDs in RFC2460 that could be translated to IPv4
As I stated above, there can be only one way common to all the
6->4 translators. Or, different fragments with an IPv6 ID will
have different IPv4 IDs.
Or, if you think RFC2460 does not mind ID uniqueness (of IPv4,
at least) so much, RFC791 should not either.
I think there are a lot of IETF documents that are not reviewed in the
correct context of existing standards. I don't think that applies to
this draft, though.
So, you are lucky that I have noticed the problem at the last call.
Masataka Ohta