IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Operational feedback on PMTUD

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Sat, 18 March 2017 12:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61CFA127011 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 05:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 CgteLz1jytWR for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 05:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 227AA126C2F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 05:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 47209 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2017 12:04:36 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 18 Mar 2017 12:04:36 -0000
Subject: Re: Operational feedback on PMTUD
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <cef9e432-e6a8-5f90-f61d-67278561cb2f@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <40fb8d3d-927b-a7e1-a724-fe332a4a10ca@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 21:03:11 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <cef9e432-e6a8-5f90-f61d-67278561cb2f@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/qr8DBzgl8fwqUbi_NFIB5zoc1Hs>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 12:03:25 -0000

I wrote:

> Just a procedural question.
>
> Though rfc2026 says:
>
>    A specification for which significant implementation and successful
>    operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
>    Internet Standard level.  An Internet Standard (which may simply be
>    referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of
>    technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified
>    protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet
>    community.
>
> does rfc1981bis qualify?

But, no response yet.

> It seems to me that rfc1981 operationally failed

For example, see my presentation at APNIC32

	How Path MTU Discovery Doesn't work
	https://meetings.apnic.net/__data/assets/file/0018/38214/pathMTU.pdf

as a proof accepted by operational community that rfc1981 style
PMTUD has been, is and will continue to be failing.

							Masataka Ohta

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email