[Idr] Use Case Question for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu-00

Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com> Fri, 20 July 2018 18:18 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 14:18:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJc3aaNHk81T284PBYfwbYq+kDPp9Ld_iqbtuDN_EPiXsa1X+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: idr@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/EdqH5t6yGMpK6fbbKYf8-ee3BA0>
Subject: [Idr] Use Case Question for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu-00
Precedence: list

WG,

To repeat my question / comment from today's WG session.

Prefix:  Operators who are likely to use SR and stack labels in a
manner which may exceed traditional MTU sizes, would also have full
control over their network, and would unlikely  maintain lower MTUs
which would necessitate the need for this extension.

>From my experience, few, if any, operators would knowingly
deploy/maintain networks which are not sized to allow for large MTU
flows across their networks (where SR stacking would occur).

Therefore my question is - do we have operators whom are asking for
this change given real needs? (or is this more of a theoretical
problem we need to solve)?  I ask this since in the practical sense,
any operator deploying SR would unlikely ignore MTU adjustments on
that same network (would seem like a design oversight).

regards,

Victor K

[Idr] Use Case Question for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-… Victor Kuarsingh