IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bier] draft-venaas-bier-mtud

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Mon, 19 March 2018 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ED8E127333 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:33:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yjv5jL5KYgno for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:33:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22a.google.com (mail-lf0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02656126C25 for <bier@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:33:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id v207-v6so6961069lfa.10 for <bier@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1/EPrUMaPd5WAq/tt1ropK3mziP33+gX8W4eRvtljbA=; b=pttpxXfItIuR93WBVGH8fAea3WHet9bh9mPoFfdlXQz9t4+flfyz+VOpbbkzrMzq9w ZuseTIL8EY9mHveDc1VtXk3jROXHnopz6zIqBqWflSTYiBTLTXGvlEsPdxwJ1JY/hQIU DTabw62Xqx3+sCIo27YjaMzAnDdCwUUDTsD8oFs3XQGYYNxzEoFPvDWCxcoS0ylAxDfC PuE27rPt5nApSyK7DTWIOzyxhNwOu7Bi7xLBDLXb7rKAn+jn8020zApgrGxREvbi7NTw uSCgcLhlhgIjHg8eNP3uku7qAMu4tjvLpNwQkPiEaChy5Gkyvz+D2IIeov5PaTinbn6O Jhvg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1/EPrUMaPd5WAq/tt1ropK3mziP33+gX8W4eRvtljbA=; b=f6Tnu1/MhkrNDblS4ZZqULsTf8aaVrR7XtWwcP/bS+YzrHIDv5Ppi3cQcQkAxJpoes iHveZkbonmFtTei6eEAgbYYn19qZrG5BGLqMZjy8btfhQzrmvrF774P7Hvv+rf3kjBBT SFu0k2p2cBwUDddIOs01SI1ijFgWRHizH4jIN5l0bYUKVZvGTaaojBhxcnYp97EhMC+X ayRLWrHVj23XqVStsV1vuvhurv0uLG353Qrx36zRnnpcAJP/WI4i5tU0VWalv1G+ilAT VHLEJogWDp9HArYMhDo4MaroyP0qkShMKBVn7hsS4liiDoyGqfeOATQvch+5Xq84Zabj o6Ig==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7Go8zU2Y5tT59DkW9QSn4kR5FdW42Nz+rcLFA3d4IwktzkNOwz3 CUKGuUFCEaxP2DkjCcKtxEtrWamoTR4ok8dpYjE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELsVSSt31ezvMOwaDSnt36JniEd5TYdI+1Udwb0VIVM1UYJCOJPHR4IyYyS1MNABwnDvrVzMJid72oM0A1tu74Y=
X-Received: by 10.46.127.4 with SMTP id a4mr8393290ljd.71.1521480802167; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.46.145.195 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:33:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+wi2hOvFXdvTPXcaqB4_UJAD89Psk6kV14VtnGW5Vt84PPwxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+wi2hOvFXdvTPXcaqB4_UJAD89Psk6kV14VtnGW5Vt84PPwxg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:33:21 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmW8XeYDroLBTgAhj3YV=H3iB5e5tu+ZMxuKTPr0fjmV0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
Cc: BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e082b53a4befd1d0567c75af1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/hibgmspnqzilXF9_3mOuio2iQ0A>
Subject: Re: [Bier] draft-venaas-bier-mtud
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"Bit Indexed Explicit Replication discussion list\"" <bier.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bier/>
List-Post: <mailto:bier@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:33:26 -0000

Dear Authors, et. al,
I understand the idea of aggregating MTU in the given BIER sub-domain but
I'm concerned that if there are interfaces with significantly different
MTUs, that the proposed approach may result in lower MTU being enforced on
paths capable of larger MTU. The BIER PMTUD draft
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bier-path-mtu-discovery-03>does
provide per path information.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Comments:
>
> a)  "
> Every BIER router, for each sub-domain with at least
>    one local BIER interface in the sub-domain, per the above definition
>    of a BIER interface, determines the *largest* payload that can be sent
>    BIER encapsulated out of any of its BIER interfaces in the sub-
>    domain.
> "
>
> The language here is unclear. Is that the *MIN*(all used subdomain
> interface MTUs) ? If so, then it makes sense.
>
> b) May merit a section saying that albeit this is much lighter-weight than
> I-D.ietf-bier-path-mtu-discovery of course it can be widely pessimistic
> since it always picks up the smallest link in the whole subdomain
>
> c) "MTU in octets" is seriously underspecified. We have ether mtu, link
> mtu, interface mtu and so on. The draft should specifiy what the precise
> way is to advertise the "BIER MTU" here IMO ...
>
> --- tony
>
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> BIER@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email