Re: End System PMTUD behavior question

Rémi Denis-Courmont <rdenis@simphalempin.com> Wed, 21 January 2009 19:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ipngwg-archive@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipngwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5022D3A6A4A; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:33:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDF9B3A6A47; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:33:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I-JuVFwNkkEM; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:33:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from yop.chewa.net (yop.chewa.net [91.121.105.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B943A69ED; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:33:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from basile.remlab.net (unknown [IPv6:2002:591b:3e27:0:211:11ff:fe25:e6b4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: remi) by yop.chewa.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 437D2492; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:33:33 +0100 (CET)
From: Rémi Denis-Courmont <rdenis@simphalempin.com>
Organization: Remlab.net
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: End System PMTUD behavior question
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:33:27 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9
References: <3C6F21684E7C954193E6C7C4573B762701D3DD67DA@IMCMBX1.MITRE.ORG>
In-Reply-To: <3C6F21684E7C954193E6C7C4573B762701D3DD67DA@IMCMBX1.MITRE.ORG>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200901212133.30109.rdenis@simphalempin.com>
Cc: "Huang, Frank" <fhuang@mitre.org>, "Sherman, Kurt T." <ksherman@mitre.org>, "Liou, Chern" <csliou@mitre.org>, "steve_eiserman@uscourts.gov" <steve_eiserman@uscourts.gov>, "ipv6-bounces@ietf.org" <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, "Grayeli, Parisa" <pgrayeli@mitre.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org TGUgbWVyY3JlZGkgMjEgamFudmllciAyMDA5IDIwOjU2OjIzIER1bm4sIEplZmZyZXkgSC4sIHZv

us avez écrit :
> Colleagues,
>
> We have been performing some PMTUD tests and have found that different
> operating systems handle PMTUD differently. Specifically, we found that the
> "ping" application behaves in the following way when the PMTU is set to
> 1280 and a 1500 octet ICMPv6 echo request is sent to that routed path. The
> hosts we tested:

I'm afraid ping applications are not representative of what the operating 
system IP stacks do. Besides, there are no standards regarding the behavior 
of "ping" in case of Path MTU problems; it's really up to the implementor of 
each "ping" whether to report an error or to transparently fragment.


The behavior of real transport protocols, such as TCP, DCCP and SCTP is more 
interesting when it comes to evaluating operating systems and their IP 
stacks.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
http://www.remlab.net/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------