[dtn-interest] MTU considerations for 'draft-irtf-dtnrg-dgram-clayer-00'
"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Fri, 09 November 2012 21:53 UTC
Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1258621F86F1 for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 13:53:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.157
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.157 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.357, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YrlL+vLr19FE for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 13:53:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slb-mbsout-01.boeing.com (slb-mbsout-01.boeing.com [130.76.64.128]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3CA721F86DD for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 13:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slb-mbsout-01.boeing.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by slb-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id qA9LrAIh012262 for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 13:53:10 -0800
Received: from XCH-NWHT-06.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-06.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.110]) by slb-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id qA9Lr9ga012234 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK) for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 13:53:09 -0800
Received: from XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.64.120]) by XCH-NWHT-06.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.110]) with mapi; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 13:53:09 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: "dtn-interest@irtf.org" <dtn-interest@irtf.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 13:53:08 -0800
Thread-Topic: MTU considerations for 'draft-irtf-dtnrg-dgram-clayer-00'
Thread-Index: AQHNvqBjgO4/+L0wNU2SSEVahbr815fh9D/g
Message-ID: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65E0E107E67@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <BB72E60F7A18154A9B1352D1DF6FEE571E26B296@NASANEXD01E.na.qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <BB72E60F7A18154A9B1352D1DF6FEE571E26B296@NASANEXD01E.na.qualcomm.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: No
Subject: [dtn-interest] MTU considerations for 'draft-irtf-dtnrg-dgram-clayer-00'
X-BeenThere: dtn-interest@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The Delay-Tolerant Networking Research Group \(DTNRG\) - Announce." <dtn-interest.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/dtn-interest>, <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/dtn-interest>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn-interest@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest>, <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 21:53:12 -0000
At the DTNRG meeting yesterday, I mentioned MTU considerations for UDP and DCCP convergence layers. Here are my suggestions for updates to the document: Thanks - Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com 1) Section 3.1, rewrite as follows: "The Bundle Protocol allows bundles with sizes limited only by node resource constraints. In IPv4, the maximum size of a UDP datagram is nearly 64KB. In IPv6, when using jumbograms [RFC2675], UDP datagrams can be up to 4GB in size [RFC2147]. It is well understood that sending large IP datagrams that must be fragmented by the network has enormous efficiency penalties [Kent88]. Recent studies have also shown that undetected data corruption can result from sending IP fragments at high data rates [RFC4963], and that IP fragments are sometimes unconditionally discarded by the network [Attacks]. The Bundle Protocol specification provides a bundle fragmentation concept [RFC5050] that allows a large bundle to be divided into bundle fragments. If the Bundle Protocol is being encapsulated in DCCP or UDP, it therefore SHOULD create each fragment of sufficiently small size that it can then be encapsulated into a datagram that will not need to be fragmented at the IP layer." 2) Add a new Section 3.1.3 as follows: "3.1.3. Path MTU Determination for DCCP and UDP IP Path MTU Discovery [RFC1191][RFC1981] depends on the deterministic delivery of ICMP Packet Too Big (PTB) messages from routers in the network. However, studies have shown that these messages are frequently discarded by the network resulting in a condition known as a black hole [RFC2923][WAND][SIGCOMM]. A new means of path MTU determination that can operate in the absence of PTB messages has therefore been specified [RFC4821]. The UDP and DCCP bundle protocol CLs can determine an appropriate MTU by employing the positive feedback probing method specified in [RFC4821]. In this process, the CL selects an initial segment size that is certain to traverse the path without loss due to an MTU restriction (e.g., 512 bytes for IPv4 or (1280-(UDP and IP header sizes)) bytes for IPv6). The CL can thereafter send probe messages of larger sizes (e.g., 1500 bytes, 4K bytes, 8K bytes, etc.) to elicit a response from the CL destination. If the CL receives a response, it can advance its segment size to the largest successful probe size. If the CL subsequently receives an ICMP PTB message, or if the path to the destination appears to be failing, it can again reduce the segment size. In this process, the CL MUST set the Don't Fragment flag in the IPv4 header to 1." 3) Add the following citations: [Attacks] Atlasis, A., "Attacking IPv6 Implementation Using Fragmentation", March 2012. [WAND] Luckie, M., Cho, K., and B. Owens, "Inferring and Debugging Path MTU Discovery Failures", October 2005 [SIGCOMM] Luckie, M. and B. Stasiewicz, "Measuring Path MTU Discovery Behavior", November 2010.
- [dtn-interest] some comments on draft-zinky-dtnrg… Fall, Kevin
- [dtn-interest] MTU considerations for 'draft-irtf… Templin, Fred L
- Re: [dtn-interest] MTU considerations for 'draft-… Simon Perreault
- Re: [dtn-interest] some comments on draft-zinky-d… John Zinky
- Re: [dtn-interest] some comments on draft-zinky-d… Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0)
- [dtn-interest] Argument in favor of a data format… John Zinky
- Re: [dtn-interest] Argument in favor of a data fo… John Zinky