Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Thu, 12 September 2019 13:57 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CA5112018D for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 06:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 qIaka9bE_4nq for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 06:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97D2812085D for <int-area@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 06:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id x8CDvFru018903; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:57:15 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-09.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-09.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.111]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id x8CDv4UQ017793 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:57:04 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-09.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.111) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 06:57:03 -0700
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5%2]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 06:57:03 -0700
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
CC: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile
Thread-Index: AQHVZ9vC+0+swfDmzUGVsRG7ePSlRacl+uEAgACTH5CAAQC9AIAABCcAgAB53vCAAAbugA==
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:57:03 +0000
Message-ID: <7c173abd36fe4307b7d49b345eaa7bb3@boeing.com>
References: <efabc7c9f72c4cd9a31f56de24669640@boeing.com> <CAHw9_iKozCAC+8TGS0fSxVZ_3pJW7rnhoKy=Y3AxLqWEXvemcA@mail.gmail.com> <4C8FE1C4-0054-4DA1-BC6E-EBBE78695F1B@gmail.com> <BYAPR05MB5463F112A3FFA8CE6378F3D3AEBB0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <ab0d5600-d71c-9f0b-2955-64074e040bc6@strayalpha.com> <E770BEF0-D901-4CD0-96E6-C626B560DCD6@gmail.com> <163CD364-2975-467A-8925-F114FFD9C422@employees.org> <E00B6159-2771-42D8-B5E8-7750E0B828DE@strayalpha.com> <3764D860-BC6F-441A-86EF-59E1742D7654@employees.org> <939AFA6F-4C75-4532-82DE-77D14ABC41ED@strayalpha.com> <5C51DCDC-4031-47D9-A28E-812D0E66EE35@employees.org> <5DAA16CC-791E-4042-95F6-65DA58D23EB8@gmail.com> <EA3B45A1-FFD2-49A5-B577-602065632F41@strayalpha.com> <5d22dd34-3972-060e-ddc1-b7f27a110a69@si6networks.com> <14f06217149d40ba8a41865ebb08ee08@boeing.com> <91894E0E-09D3-42E4-B6C4-88AE4493D796@apnic.net> <2f6ad3ad143d44588059f083a9e1835c@boeing.com> <C7AE8A6E-2451-4D08-9D77-6E69DECA4165@gmail.com> <b9b6ca03-69c6-1e5d-bbc4-70ce16d3a252@gmail.com> <dfea6fa2742344729e54f575d74810a8@boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <dfea6fa2742344729e54f575d74810a8@boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: 604C9EA07F5E1E3199757081A42E1762F4B4BE9008DE5608B7F9A9A9171A67C12000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/hmFVETlwxlEeVSThvmxnegrB1rc>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:57:25 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin (US), Fred L
> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 6:31 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>om>; Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org; Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile
> 
> Brian,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 4:14 PM
> > To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>om>; Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> > Cc: int-area@ietf.org; Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile
> >
> > On 12-Sep-19 10:59, Bob Hinden wrote:
> > > Fred,
> > >
> > >> On Sep 11, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Geoff, the 1280 MTU came from Steve Deering's November 13, 1997 proposal to
> > >> the ipngwg. The exact message from the ipng archives is reproduced below.
> > >>
> > >> 1280 isn't just a recommendation - it's *the law*. Any link that cannot do 1280
> > >> (tunnels included) is not an IPv6 link.
> > >
> > > Yes from IPv6’s view, but you can make a link that can’t do 1280 work if it has its own local L2 fragmentation / reassembly as noted
> in
> > Steve’s email.  ATM with is 53 byte cells comes to mind.
> >
> > IPv4 with a small PMTU also comes to mind, as discussed in Section 3.2.2 of RFC 4213:
> >
> >    In this case, the IPv6 layer has to "see" a link
> >    layer with an MTU of 1280 bytes and the encapsulator has to use IPv4
> >    fragmentation in order to forward the 1280 byte IPv6 packets.
> 
> Yes, IP fragmentation - exactly.

See also Section 7 of RFC2473.

> Fred
> 
> >       Brian
> >
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Fred
> > >>
> > >> ---
> > >> From owner-ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com  Thu Nov 13 16:41:01 1997
> > >> Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
> > >> 	by sunroof.eng.sun.com (8.8.8+Sun.Beta.0/8.8.8) id QAA14339
> > >> 	for ipng-dist; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:38:00 -0800 (PST)
> > >> Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (engmail1 [129.146.1.13])
> > >> 	by sunroof.eng.sun.com (8.8.8+Sun.Beta.0/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA14332
> > >> 	for <ipng@sunroof>; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:37:51 -0800 (PST)
> > >> Received: from saturn.sun.com (saturn.EBay.Sun.COM [129.150.69.2])
> > >> 	by Eng.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-5.3) with SMTP id QAA28654
> > >> 	for <ipng@sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM>OM>; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:37:48 -0800
> > >> Received: from postoffice.cisco.com (postoffice.cisco.com [171.69.200.88])
> > >> 	by saturn.sun.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA28706
> > >> 	for <ipng@sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM>OM>; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:37:49 -0800 (PST)
> > >> Received: from [171.69.199.124] (deering-mac.cisco.com [171.69.199.124]) by postoffice.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with
> ESMTP
> > id QAA20862; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:37:48 -0800 (PST)
> > >> X-Sender: deering@postoffice.cisco.com
> > >> Message-Id: <v03110702b0598e80008d@[171.69.199.124]>
> > >> Mime-Version: 1.0
> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> > >> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:37:00 -0800
> > >> To: IPng Working Group <ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com>
> > >> From: Steve Deering <deering@cisco.com>
> > >> Subject: (IPng 4802) increasing the IPv6 minimum MTU
> > >> Cc: hinden@ipsilon.com
> > >> Sender: owner-ipng@eng.sun.com
> > >> Precedence: bulk
> > >>
> > >> In the ipngwg meeting in Munich, I proposed increasing the IPv6 minimum MTU
> > >> from 576 bytes to something closer to the Ethernet MTU of 1500 bytes, (i.e.,
> > >> 1500 minus room for a couple layers of encapsulating headers, so that min-
> > >> MTU-size packets that are tunneled across 1500-byte-MTU paths won't be
> > >> subject to fragmentation/reassembly on ingress/egress from the tunnels,
> > >> in most cases).
> > >>
> > >> After the short discussion in the Munich meeting, I called for a show of
> > >> hands, and of those who raised their hands (about half the attendees, if
> > >> I recall correctly), the vast majority were in favor of this change --
> > >> there were only two or three people opposed.  However, we recognized that
> > >> a fundamental change of this nature requires thoughtful discussion and
> > >> analysis on the mailing list, to allow those who were not at the meeting
> > >> and those who were there but who have since had second thoughts, to express
> > >> their opinions.  A couple of people have already, in private conversation,
> > >> raised some concerns that were not identified in the discussion at the
> > >> meeting, which I report below.  We would like to get this issue settled as
> > >> soon as possible, since this is the only thing holding up the publication
> > >> of the updated Proposed Standard IPv6 spec (the version we expect to advance
> > >> to Draft Standard), so let's see if we can come to a decision before the ID
> > >> deadline at the end of next week (hoping there isn't any conflict between
> > >> "thoughtful analysis" and "let's decide quickly" :-).
> > >>
> > >> The reason I would like to increase the minimum MTU is that there are some
> > >> applications for which Path MTU Discovery just won't work very well, and
> > >> which will therefore limit themselves to sending packets no larger than
> > >> the minimum MTU.  Increasing the minimum MTU would improve the bandwidth
> > >> efficiency, i.e., reduce the header overhead (ratio of header bytes to
> > >> payload bytes), for those applications.  Some examples of such applications
> > >> are:
> > >>
> > >>    (1) Large-fanout, high-volume multicast apps, such as multicast video
> > >> 	("Internet TV"), multicast netnews, and multicast software
> > >> 	distribution.  I believe these applications will end up limiting
> > >> 	themselves to packets no large than the min MTU in order to avoid
> > >> 	the danger of incurring  an "implosion" of ICMP Packet-Too-Big
> > >> 	messages in response.  Even though we have specified that router
> > >> 	implementations must carefully rate-limit the emission of ICMP
> > >> 	error messages, I am nervous about how well this will work in
> > >> 	practice, especially once there is a lot of high-speed, bulk
> > >> 	multicasting happening.  An appropriate choice of rate or
> > >> 	probability of emission of Packet-Too-Big responses to multicasts
> > >> 	really depends on the fan-out of the multicast trees and the MTUs of
> > >> 	all the branches in that tree, which is unknown and unknowable to
> > >> 	the routers.  Being sensibly conservative by choosing a very low
> > >> 	rate could, in many cases, significantly increase the delay before
> > >> 	the multicast source learns the right MTU for the tree and, hence,
> > >> 	before receivers on smaller-MTU branches can start receiving the
> > >> 	data.
> > >>
> > >>    (2) DNS servers, or other similar apps that have the requirement of
> > >> 	sending a small amount of data (a few packets at most) to a very
> > >> 	large and transient set of clients.  Such servers often reside on
> > >> 	links, such as Ethernet, that have an MTU bigger than the links on
> > >> 	which many of their clients may reside, such as dial-up links.  If
> > >> 	those servers were to send many reply messages of the size of their
> > >> 	own links (as required by PMTU Discovery), they could incur very
> > >> 	many ICMP packet-too-big messages and consequent retransmissions of
> > >> 	the replies -- in the worse case, multiplying the total bandwidth
> > >> 	consumption (and delivery delay) by 2 or 3 times that of the
> > >> 	alternative approach of just using the min MTU always.  Furthermore,
> > >> 	the use of PMTU Discovery could result in such servers filling up
> > >> 	lots of memory withed cached PMTU information that will never be
> > >> 	used again (at least, not before it gets garbage-collected).
> > >>
> > >> The number I propose for the new minimum MTU is 1280 bytes (1024 + 256,
> > >> as compared to the classic 576 value which is 512 + 64).  That would
> > >> leave generous room for encapsulating/tunnel headers within the Ethernet
> > >> MTU of 1500, e.g., enough for two layers of secure tunneling including
> > >> both ESP and AUTH headers.
> > >>
> > >> For medium-to-high speed links, this change would reduce the IPv6 header
> > >> overhead for min MTU packets from 7% to 3% (a little less than the IPv4
> > >> header overhead for 576-byte IPv4 packets).  For low-speed links such as
> > >> analog dial-up or low-speed wireless, I assume that header compression will
> > >> be employed, which compresses out the IPv6 header completely, so the IPv6
> > >> header overhead on such links is effectively zero in any case.
> > >>
> > >> Here is a list of *disadvantages* to increasing the IPv6 minimum MTU that
> > >> have been raised, either publically or privately:
> > >>
> > >>    (1) This change would require the specification of link-specific
> > >> 	fragmentation and reassembly protocols for those link-layers
> > >> 	that can support 576-byte packets but not 1280-byte packets,
> > >> 	e.g., AppleTalk.  I think such a protocol could be very simple,
> > >> 	and I briefly sketch such a protocol in Appendix I of this
> > >> 	message, as an example.
> > >>
> > >> 	Often, those links that have a small native MTU are also the ones
> > >> 	that have low bandwidth.  On low-bandwidth links, it is often
> > >> 	desirable to locally fragment and reassemble IPv6 packets anyway
> > >> 	(even 576-byte ones) in order to avoid having small, interactive
> > >> 	packets (e.g., keystrokes, character echoes, or voice samples)
> > >> 	be delayed excessively behind bigger packets (e.g., file transfers);
> > >> 	the small packets can be interleaved with the fragments of the
> > >> 	big packets.  Someone mentioned in the meeting in Munich that the
> > >> 	ISSLL WG was working on a PPP-specific fragmentation and
> > >> 	reassembly protocol for precisely this reason, so maybe the job
> > >> 	of specifying such a protocol is already being taken care of.
> > >>
> > >>    (2) Someone raised the concern that, if we make the minimum MTU close
> > >> 	to Ethernet size, implementors might never bother to implement PMTU
> > >> 	Discovery.  That would be regrettable, especially if the Internet
> > >> 	evolves to much more widespread use of links with MTUs bigger
> > >> 	than Ethernet's, since IPv6 would then fail to take advantage of
> > >> 	the bandwidth efficiencies possible on larger MTU paths.
> > >>
> > >>    (3) Peter Curran pointed out to me that using a larger minimum MTU for
> > >> 	IPv6 may result in much greater reliance on *IPv4* fragmentation and
> > >> 	reassembly during the transition phase while much of the IPv6
> > >> 	traffic is being tunneled over IPv4.  This could incur unfortunate
> > >> 	performance penalties for tunneled IPv6 traffic (disasterous
> > >> 	penalties if there is non-negligible loss of IPv4 fragments).
> > >> 	I have included Peter's message, describing his concern in more
> > >> 	detail, in Appendix II of this message.
> > >>
> > >>    (4) Someone expressed the opinion that the requirement for link-layer
> > >> 	fragmentation and reassembly of IPv6 over low-cost, low-MTU links
> > >> 	like Firewire, would doom the potential use of IPv6 in cheap
> > >> 	consumer devices in which minimizing code size is important --
> > >> 	implementors of cheap Firewire devices would choose IPv4 instead,
> > >> 	since it would not need a fragmenting "shim" layer.  This may well
> > >> 	be true, though I suspect the code required for local frag/reasm
> > >> 	would be negligible compared to the code required for Neighbor
> > >> 	Discovery.
> > >>
> > >> Personally, I am not convinced by the above concerns that increasing the
> > >> minimum MTU would be a mistake, but I'd like to hear what the rest of the
> > >> WG thinks.  Are there other problems that anyone can think of?  As I
> > >> mentioned earlier, the clear consensus of the Munich attendees was to
> > >> increase the minimum MTU, so we need to find out if these newly-identified
> > >> problems are enough to swing the consensus in the other direction.  Your
> > >> feedback is heartily requested.
> > >>
> > >> Steve
> > >>
> > >> ----------
> > >>
> > >> Appendix I
> > >>
> > >> Here is a sketch of a fragmentation and reassembly protocol (call it FRP)
> > >> to be employed between the IP layer and the link layer of a link with native
> > >> (or configured) MTU less than 1280 bytes.
> > >>
> > >> Identify a Block Size, B, which is the lesser of (a) the native MTU of the
> > >> link or (b) a value related to the bandwidth of the link, chosen to bound
> > >> the latency that one block can impose on a subsequent block.  For example,
> > >> to stay within a latency of 200 ms on a 9600 bps link, choose a block size
> > >> of .2 * 9600 = 2400 bits = 240 bytes.
> > >>
> > >> IPv6 packets of length <= B are transmitted directly on the link.
> > >> IPv6 packets of length > B are fragmented into blocks of size B
> > >> (the last block possibly being shorter than B), and those fragments
> > >> are transmitted on the link with an FRP header containing the following
> > >> fields:
> > >>
> > >> 	[packet ID, block number, end flag]
> > >>
> > >> where:
> > >>
> > >> 	packet ID is the same for all fragments of the same packet,
> > >> 	and is incremented for each new fragmented packet.  The size of
> > >> 	the packet ID field limits how many packets can be in flight or
> > >> 	interleaved on the link at any one time.
> > >>
> > >> 	block number identifies the blocks within a packet, starting at
> > >> 	block zero.  The block number field must be large enough to
> > >> 	identify 1280/B blocks.
> > >>
> > >> 	end flag is a one-bit flag which is used to mark the last block
> > >> 	of a packet.
> > >>
> > >> For example, on a 9600 bps serial link, one might use a block size of
> > >> 240 bytes and an 8-bit FRP header of the following format:
> > >>
> > >> 	4-bit packet ID, which allows interleaving of up to 16 packets.
> > >> 	3-bit block number, to identify blocks numbered 0 through 5.
> > >> 	1-bit end flag.
> > >>
> > >> On a 256 kpbs AppleTalk link, one might use the AppleTalk-imposed block
> > >> size of ~580 bytes and an 8-bit FRP header of the following format:
> > >>
> > >> 	5-bit packet ID, which allows for up to 32 fragmented packets in
> > >> 		   flight from each source across the AppleTalk internet.
> > >> 	2-bit block number, to identify blocks numbered 0 through 2.
> > >> 	1-bit end flag.
> > >>
> > >> On a multi-access link, like AppleTalk, the receiver uses the link-level
> > >> source address as well as the packet ID to identify blocks belonging to
> > >> the same packet.
> > >>
> > >> If a receiver fails to receive all of the blocks of a packet by the time
> > >> the packet number wraps around, it discards the incompletely-reassembled
> > >> packet.  Taking this approach, no timers should be needed at the receiver
> > >> to detect fragment loss.  We expect the transport layer (e.g., TCP) checksum
> > >> at the final IPv6 destination to detect mis-assembly that might be caused by
> > >> extreme misordering/delay during transit across the link.
> > >>
> > >> On links on which IPv6 header compression is being used, compression is
> > >> performed before fragmentation, and reassembly is done before decompression.
> > >>
> > >> ----------
> > >>
> > >> Appendix II
> > >>
> > >> From: Peter Curran <peter@gate.ticl.co.uk>
> > >> Subject: Re: IPv6 MTU issue
> > >> To: deering@cisco.com (Steve Deering)
> > >> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:50:34 +0100 (BST)
> > >>
> > >> Steve
> > >>
> > >> My problem was that moving the MTU close to 1500 would have an adverse
> > >> effect on the transition strategy.  The current strategy assumes that the
> > >> typical Internet MTU is >576, and that sending an IPv6 packet close to the
> > >> minimum MTU will not require any IPv4 fragmentation to support the tunnel
> > >> transparently.  The PMTU discovery mechanism will 'tune' IPv6 to use a
> > >> suitable MTU.
> > >>
> > >> If the IPv4 MTU is <= 576 then IPv4 fragmentation will be required to
> > >> provide a tunnel with a minimum MTU of 576 for IPv6.  This clearly places
> > >> a significant strain on the tunnelling nodes - as these will normally be
> > >> routers then there will be a demand for memory (for reassembly buffers)
> > >> as well as CPU (for the frag/reassembly process) that will have an overall
> > >> impact on performance.
> > >>
> > >> This is an acceptable risk, as Internet MTU's of <= 576 are not too common.
> > >>
> > >> However, if the minimum MTU of IPv6 is increased to something of the order
> > >> of 1200-1500 octets then the likelihood of finding an IPv4 path with an
> > >> MTU lower than this value increases (I think significantly) and this will
> > >> have a performance impact on these devices.
> > >>
> > >> During the brief discussion of this matter in the IPNG session at Munich
> > >> you stated that MTU's less than 1500 where rare.  I don't agree with this
> > >> completely - it seems to be pretty common practise for smaller 2nd and 3rd
> > >> tier ISP's in the UK to use an MTU of 576 for connection to their transit
> > >> provider.  Their objective, I believe, is to 'normalize' the packet sizes
> > >> on relatively low bandwidth circuits (typically <1Mbps) to provide better
> > >> performance for interactive sessions compared to bulk-file transfer users.
> > >>
> > >> I think that before we go ahead and make a decision on an increased minimum
> > >> MTU for IPv6 then we should discuss the issues a little more.
> > >>
> > >> Incidentally, I am not convinced of the benefits of doing this anyway
> > >> (ignoring the issue raised above).  With a properly setup stack the PMTU
> > >> discovery mechanism seems to be able to select a good MTU for use on the
> > >> path - at least that is my experience on our test network and the 6Bone.
> > >>
> > >> I appreciate that you are trying to address the issues of PMTU for multi-
> > >> casting but I don't see how raising the minumum MTU is going to help much.
> > >> PMTU discovery will still be required irrespective of the minimum MTU
> > >> adopted, unless we adopt a value that can be used on all link-layer technolo-
> > >> gies.
> > >>
> > >> I would welcome wider discussion of these issues before pressing ahead
> > >> with a change.
> > >>
> > >> Best regards
> > >>
> > >> Peter Curran
> > >> TICL
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> > >> IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> > >> FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> > >> Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Int-area mailing list
> > > Int-area@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
> > >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area