Re: Segmentation within HIP

On 03/25/2016 03:49 PM, Derek Fawcus wrote:
> Recently I've been working on middlebox s/w:  Firewalls and NAT.
> 
> One thing this has brought home to me is just how unreliable
> fragmentation is on the current Internet.  NAT will often
> simply break it (such that they can not be reassembled) or
> just discard them,  and firewalls are often set up to block them.
> 
> As such,  almost every protocol now would seem to need protocol
> level segmentation/fragmentation,  rather than depend up IP
> level fragmentation.
> 
> It struck me that it should be quite simple to extend HIP to
> support such.
> 
> 1) Add a Controls bit which advertises that the sender supports
>     segmentation.
> 2) Define a new parameter,  numbered 1 such that it is first in
>     the parameters,  and is critical.
>     Within the parameter have a seqno/identifier, offset and
>     more segments / final segment bit, possibly also a total
>     size field.  Define some simple reassembly rules,  similar
>     to those for IP fragments, such that one could reassemble
>     a HIP packet larger than 2008 bytes if desired (how big?).
> 3) Possibly also define a none critical parameter within the
>     non signed,  non MACed range which advertises the max size
>     packet the sender is willing to reassemble.  In fact I guess
>     this might remove the need to use a Controls bit,  since it
>     would imply the sender can reassemble.
> 
> Then have a rule that once one party has seen the other party
> advertise the segmentation capability within the current BEX
> session, it is free to make use of segmentation towards that peer.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> DF

Hi Derek, I don't remember the details, but in the early days of HIP, it was decided to avoid the burden of supporting fragmentation.  I guess I'd prefer to see some evidence that HIP messages are being fragmented in the wild before starting a work effort to add support.

- Tom