IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-02 - Respond by May 18

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 07 May 2014 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0F7D1A02F1 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 May 2014 12:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
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 zE34_o1K8sPL for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 May 2014 12:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71C981A02AC for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2014 12:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85DAD1B82A4 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2014 12:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 771D819005C; Wed, 7 May 2014 12:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.17.67.243] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 7 May 2014 12:41:56 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1B00F37C@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 14:41:50 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <18E909A0-1955-4E5B-A003-304FE2B946FD@nominum.com>
References: <535FEDAD.5010103@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqen37j5UCsKZj6syVyvk2Xed4V_xGp-t4xY8shjmS+H5g@mail.gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1B008430@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <4F2473AB-E8F7-4620-874C-3DCA59E70DE5@gmail.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AE431FB@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1B00BAC1@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <9A6A9452-AF57-4EE1-9401-E0CE26922E6B@gmail.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AE438BE@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <4891B713-5C8E-414A-99D7-64869C2E6F3A@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqc+qofsHEHZyuG7UotHmZ170OuFoUzz13hz7Rj_8V5FsA@mail.gmail.com> <87A01A92-7517-40A4-8DD0-EE29AADA4AF6@nominum.com> <CAJE_bqeKYoRzVxSgJHg2Ud6H2qEZGaEdFyD=4Ps84NTFyOdELA@mail.gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1B00EF3B@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <074EF8DF-6404-4D90-B56C-6955A3939A6D@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1B00F1F6@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <9EDC6F15-62FA-42B4-A145-94CEFAAE2918@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1B00F31E@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <9C5EC552-A039-4EC5-B475-3A58A3C9BC70@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1B00F37C@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
To: Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/IrtE4QcqoWh0gDLTjHKErP2Q89k
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-02 - Respond by May 18
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 19:42:01 -0000

There are two ways to do PMTU discovery.   One is to just send the packet, and if we get an ICMP Packet Too Big packet back, we set the path MTU to the reported size and try again.   The other is to detect it in the application layer protocol.   In this case, that would be DHCP, probably the DHCP relay agent and server.   This would be necessary in the case of a firewall that drops ICMP Packet Too Big messages.

I think it would make sense to add a recommendation in 3315bis that operators configure their firewalls to pass ICMP Packet Too Big messages.   I don't think we should go any further than that.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email