Re: [dhcwg] MTU option for DHCPv6?

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 28 July 2016 09:14 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 3D18E12D66E for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 02:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.987
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.987 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 aQSnf4INEF8i for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 02:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x229.google.com (mail-io0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::229]) (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 2DBC112D8B4 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 02:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x229.google.com with SMTP id q83so94412713iod.1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 02:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ORDkEvT9QxubKQrij7T2xzAG4bXjnwWSiLhSm6ypqvM=; b=hxAH9qVt602v1uxHCHApHnImRy/t1pWbilKDVeD0chFZpP/nx04NKPFgnovBdF1clA JAVARnUbZdPsOmCkgG4PcnxNNOIuZgR5aE4uEwZMZmotLnNd7hyjLLIk/dwvUDvpTjqw AILtrXVSLgOZ1ycOmD9KGeZX286YTWubb0cxALpnxsmzl735f7V/HvWAIz/JvM+/O+4q qG2/ik1iL1dIKwuN9BVRLnk8qEtzVFzyojzCZv2dYjhTYQs9sWRwkT8Ri80eBeCOY7fl JANgpthyjYv1f9DHEEsTHr7mC06Mt1wcPrukPkK+4r9oGkFRWSMYH+vbpjKU3w6VVgfo ZJAA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ORDkEvT9QxubKQrij7T2xzAG4bXjnwWSiLhSm6ypqvM=; b=Mf2V6MXslvGaI2IlepREL6sl42H74bh12d/6HwM+h4L2FWRlWG8cOqnJ0cEoX3OoUG E9a5ViXJc35pct8PuElHCwQrD1Er2nZpXdifh9ehnMiQ5YQ4kXAeSzI0zdjzw0GqbJEp CIP1rrxDrpTUnvlSbVkjOYxaIeGK7GKjP/M25o2MpVLvATWkfXfpMd24i6ljnGwS/zEg J7flFbalOIuTRuOh5/GrxFADDFBXRRfqxf0yN8VDKeCmFadhJYTf8WBazurcwbJR5ufy NvDqd/hVl7NB3WRnT2gTUJ9cT0jCOsC7Yv8vpKcgpElggulIVuq+3b3xqAThs/5/Qc2s CP4w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoout/x7jI5MeAWO7JSn+QcV6lCJNpo4D1uo4GzzhXARrmCWxwQnUFM5j6R1WFkNxCjPZnAYFHJ2oPYj2sbA+A
X-Received: by 10.107.149.16 with SMTP id x16mr35839067iod.141.1469697244340; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 02:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.26.72 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 02:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <F22A046E-27FA-4EED-9699-70A6B3D49A66@gmx.com>
References: <8c706ad593cc403d9e738c7aafec8360@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <5671d2f3bf364bec9b70ab8cbb9cd2a9@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <9db5a86d50314519b4fcc4589717f802@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <f98d75f73d224798a406084fdb4cdedc@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <F22A046E-27FA-4EED-9699-70A6B3D49A66@gmx.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 18:13:44 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr0nw09qss1YMi1CLqjH+iYAaVTCP4xZLsj7eNwWyLUa6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140f7a02d8fb40538ae8eaa
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/qHSf1ZKLi-cpj1jiXfm7YI9xVzU>
Cc: "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <volz@cisco.com>
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: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:14:12 -0000

Ian,

please let's not rehash the arguments about putting routing into DHCPv6.
Last time that happened the resulting controversy was substantial.

Why doesn't the link use RAs? It seems to me that MTU is just one of the
parameters that are needed for link configuration. Other examples are be
router lifetimes, or default router addresses for things like liveness
detection using NUD or failover between multiple routers.

Cheers,
Lorenzo

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com> wrote:

> Hi Bernie,
>
> It sounds like Fred is looking for a DHCPv6 equivalent of DHCPv4 option 26
> which (as I understand it) allows the DHCP server to tell the client the
> interface MTU to use on the link. Is this the same option as the one that
> you’re referring to?
>
> I can also see a use for having this information being sent to the client
> as we plan to use large MTUs to clients. From my perspective, having this
> information inside the PIO would be most useful.
>
> @Fred, if the MTU was carried as an option inside the PIO, and there was a
> way of putting the PIO into DHCP, would this work for you?
>
>
> Ian
>
>
> > On 28 Jul 2016, at 00:14, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dhcwg mailing list
> > dhcwg@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>