Re: [dhcwg] MTU option for DHCPv6?

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Wed, 27 July 2016 22:14 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0C8912D9EB for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 15:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.808
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.808 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 OrSi5-5ZoL5h for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 15:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D579412D9B0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 15:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2176; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1469657652; x=1470867252; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=CIcwdQk+2IIIiEpp8uroT1jn9Bn5NPbZ9mES++pQPAQ=; b=Whv/n2kVG3CMqufaYFcRVdkMTp5DJdpUq6VL1ohzXUcTlmZRrWsEeIzV Gj4tw3tPWpcI/5bR7nwEaO38rGkprUd9g+uzez/S963WzpNUIf3yK45Su cwPZ/NF4LOrJuQS8JjlBNOHefPcuxAXMPq9vIY0tm70YgCXyIXjOwsF7v Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BRAgBUMZlX/4QNJK1dgz9WfAa4boF9J?= =?us-ascii?q?IV5AoE3OBQBAQEBAQEBXSeEXAEBBQEBODQXBAIBCBEEAQEfCQcnCxQJCAEBBAE?= =?us-ascii?q?SCIgpDrtxAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFwWKd4IQghodMYUjBZkxAY50j?= =?us-ascii?q?0eMLYN3AR42g3huAYZ7BUB/AQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,431,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="301373030"
Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 27 Jul 2016 22:14:12 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6RMECv7020599 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 27 Jul 2016 22:14:12 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 17:14:11 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-003.cisco.com ([173.36.7.13]) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com ([173.36.7.13]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 17:14:11 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: MTU option for DHCPv6?
Thread-Index: AdHoQoGGAMbjaqWBR9aaxP1yToT6sgAB2X5AAABnFgAAAhk9oA==
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 22:14:11 +0000
Message-ID: <f98d75f73d224798a406084fdb4cdedc@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com>
References: <8c706ad593cc403d9e738c7aafec8360@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <5671d2f3bf364bec9b70ab8cbb9cd2a9@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <9db5a86d50314519b4fcc4589717f802@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <9db5a86d50314519b4fcc4589717f802@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.131.77.197]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/lVPv4kKQN7vsaWbs3NhwlgVxqwA>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] MTU option for DHCPv6?
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 27 Jul 2016 22:14:14 -0000

I'm not sure I fully follow.

The v4 MTU option is the client telling the server how much it can receive.

I'm not sure why the client wouldn't just use a large buffer (64K) as it isn't likely to need many of these buffers? The server is often more restrictive since it might be processing many requests at once.

And, why would you need to have the server send so much data that the client might not be able to receive it all?

BTW: I think when this came up during the writing of 3315, it was thought that having the client use a 64K buffer wasn't really an issue.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 5:24 PM
To: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>om>; <dhcwg@ietf.org> <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: MTU option for DHCPv6?

Hi Bernie,

I'm operating on a link where I don't need to get any configuration information from RS/RA - everything comes from DHCPv6. So, ideally, I would like to see DHCPv6 provide an MTU option and a Prefix Information Option - then I would have everything I need so that I don't have to use a vendor-specific option. Would that be possible?

Thanks - Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:volz@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 2:02 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>om>; <dhcwg@ietf.org> 
> <dhcwg@ietf.org>
> Subject: RE: MTU option for DHCPv6?
> 
> Hi Fred:
> 
> Nothing has been proposed that I can recall. The issue really hasn't come up (to date).
> 
> - Bernie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred 
> L
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 4:10 PM
> To: <dhcwg@ietf.org> <dhcwg@ietf.org>
> Subject: [dhcwg] MTU option for DHCPv6?
> 
> Just curious - is there now (or has there ever been proposed) an MTU 
> option for DHCPv6 in the same way that DHCPv4 has an MTU option?
> 
> Thanks - Fred
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg