Re: [dhcwg] MTU option for DHCPv6?

otroan@employees.org Thu, 28 July 2016 09:06 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 60A8D12D9B9 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 02:06:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.566 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_SORBS_WEB=0.77, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 TrWiIQnYM4Og for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 02:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from incoming.kjsl.com (inbound02.kjsl.com [IPv6:2001:1868:2002::144]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACEA412D950 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 02:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([65.50.211.142]) by ironport02.kjsl.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Jul 2016 09:06:04 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 521339CC4E; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 02:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; s=selector1; bh=eFFk2roshoE2onmn95N+D3weP9E=; b= bUVUmb0o6NbVZGvB8aioZd2ibTWE878My68ZxCrTZ6Nk2MYfbagUbsY+6xKwLAnq A1OIqESuUqcvCZpv0DOOYpy+k22BtfpcOjKQ7u4ntElsfTff9h5F53nMSoHC7FuV jFbeM5JLOlCi4Al6BNQMPRSdlQJ5L76AuVt7tJyoh1s=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=B9VEiFC8C0PHhhiWRH4pwm/WMf jekJSoGLXjzIWxqDP4aiJvqOVup7nqunjDKw20yLFGAb1KT21BOEv6CrBUbTfwKP TVIzHrU5td9Spc6R6otNkqf9s8EL8b0ErVDJMGtAhLoEOZk4248DYs2ttasX/m3n wepXAlzL1gT+DRPpM=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (unknown [173.38.220.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1CE269CC7C; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 02:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA7632C72BA0; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:06:00 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C7A13D87-A323-4020-A57E-FEA2788F1E40"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <F22A046E-27FA-4EED-9699-70A6B3D49A66@gmx.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:06:00 +0200
Message-Id: <20AC7B4D-430C-4D56-8D5C-1E134AEEDA76@employees.org>
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>
To: Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/vNHpvz68-ZOKjzJUXEKMTgjDgm8>
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 09:06:08 -0000

> 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?

If you want to solve the set of problems that Mikael outlined here:
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-6man-4.pdf

Then the notion of an interface MTU might not be so helpful. MTU is really a path property between two end hosts.

Best regards,
Ole