IETF Logo Mail Archive

[BEHAVE] Fwd: IPv6 hosts sending <1280 byte packets

Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> Sun, 07 February 2010 19:39 UTC

Return-Path: <iljitsch@muada.com>
X-Original-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 822A13A6EE8 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 11:39:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pETXvgCesxxm for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 11:39:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sequoia.muada.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:1af8:2:5::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 932C63A692C for <behave@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 11:39:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.11] (static-167-138-7-89.ipcom.comunitel.net [89.7.138.167] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id o17Jcv0O023078 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <behave@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:39:02 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com)
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:40:06 +0100
References: <4B6F08CC.2070900@wand.net.nz>
To: "behave@ietf.org WG" <behave@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <063A973F-EBC3-4CD0-B5B6-B0FB42A8593D@muada.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
Subject: [BEHAVE] Fwd: IPv6 hosts sending <1280 byte packets
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:39:20 -0000

Ben Stasiewics has done some testing to see if hosts actually respond with a fragment header after a < 1280 too big message, and the results are surprising.

Looks like we can't depend on hosts implementing this correctly.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ben Stasiewicz <ben@wand.net.nz>
> Date: 7 februari 2010 19:39:08 GMT+01:00
> To: mtu@psc.edu
> Cc: Matthew Luckie <mjl@wand.net.nz>
> Subject: Re: IPv6 hosts sending <1280 byte packets [was RE: RRG discussion of SEAL, IPTM - and my critique of RFC4821]

> On 29/01/10 08:40, Dan Wing wrote:
>> Ben, would it be possible to conduct a test to see how hosts react to PTB
>> smaller than 1280?

> I conducted such a test and found that 299 (43.46%) of the 688
> IPv6-capable web servers that I tested did include an IPv6 fragmentation
> header in their response packets after they were sent an ICMPv6 PTB
> message specifying an MTU < 1280 bytes. The other 389 (56.54%) did not.

> I am happy to answer any questions about the test.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email