Re: End System PMTUD behavior question

Thomas Peterson <thomasp@iol.unh.edu> Wed, 21 January 2009 20:00 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 2FD6928C221; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:00:53 -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 2191C28C226; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:00:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 jBmVE4JvWZiI; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:00:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from postal.iol.unh.edu (postal.iol.unh.edu [132.177.123.84]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D72C128C216; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:00:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chinacat.iol.unh.edu (chinacat.iol.unh.edu [132.177.125.46]) by postal.iol.unh.edu (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id n0LK0J7k019245 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:00:19 -0500
Message-Id: <42A4D5E1-C552-434C-90E3-DA3EF4A78688@iol.unh.edu>
From: Thomas Peterson <thomasp@iol.unh.edu>
To: "Dunn, Jeffrey H." <jdunn@mitre.org>
In-Reply-To: <3C6F21684E7C954193E6C7C4573B762701D3DD687B@IMCMBX1.MITRE.ORG>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Subject: Re: End System PMTUD behavior question
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:00:20 -0500
References: <3C6F21684E7C954193E6C7C4573B762701D3DD67DA@IMCMBX1.MITRE.ORG> <200901212133.30109.rdenis@simphalempin.com> <3C6F21684E7C954193E6C7C4573B762701D3DD687B@IMCMBX1.MITRE.ORG>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.94/8885/Wed Jan 21 12:48:08 2009 on postal.iol.unh.edu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Cc: "ipv6-bounces@ietf.org" <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>, "Liou, Chern" <csliou@mitre.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "Sherman, Kurt T." <ksherman@mitre.org>, "steve_eiserman@uscourts.gov" <steve_eiserman@uscourts.gov>, "Huang, Frank" <fhuang@mitre.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-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org Hi Jeffrey,

This is Thomas Peterson from the InterOperability Laboratory at UNH.

We have done extensive testing in this area and would be happy to work  
with you off line to examine this scenario.

If you would like we can even set up your test topology in our lab.

Thanks,
Tom

On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote:

> Rémi,
>
> I agree with you assertions concerning "ping" versus TCP; however, I  
> am looking for some concrete documentation or experiences.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jeffrey Dunn
> Info Systems Eng., Lead
> MITRE Corporation.
> (301) 448-6965 (mobile)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rémi Denis-Courmont [mailto:rdenis@simphalempin.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 2:33 PM
> To: ipv6@ietf.org
> Cc: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; ipv6-bounces@ietf.org; v6ops@ops.ietf.org;  
> Sherman, Kurt T.; Liou, Chern; steve_eiserman@uscourts.gov; Huang,  
> Frank; Grayeli, Parisa
> Subject: Re: End System PMTUD behavior question
>
> Le mercredi 21 janvier 2009 20:56:23 Dunn, Jeffrey H., vous 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------