Re: End System PMTUD behavior question

Thomas Peterson <thomasp@iol.unh.edu> Fri, 23 January 2009 16:51 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 71B2B28C1E7; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:51:15 -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 D5AE628C1E7; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:51:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.341
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.341 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.258, 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 qL-6pKC+vqwy; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:51:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from postal.iol.unh.edu (postal.iol.unh.edu [132.177.123.84]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3589A28C17F; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:51:07 -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 n0NGoka8016920 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:50:47 -0500
Message-Id: <AC2985F0-F72C-4AF4-B177-6DC29E0A943B@iol.unh.edu>
From: Thomas Peterson <thomasp@iol.unh.edu>
To: "Dunn, Jeffrey H." <jdunn@mitre.org>
In-Reply-To: <3C6F21684E7C954193E6C7C4573B762701D3DD7322@IMCMBX1.MITRE.ORG>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Subject: Re: End System PMTUD behavior question
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:50:47 -0500
References: <3C6F21684E7C954193E6C7C4573B762701D3DD67DA@IMCMBX1.MITRE.ORG> <200901212133.30109.rdenis@simphalempin.com> <3C6F21684E7C954193E6C7C4573B762701D3DD687B@IMCMBX1.MITRE.ORG> <42A4D5E1-C552-434C-90E3-DA3EF4A78688@iol.unh.edu> <3C6F21684E7C954193E6C7C4573B762701D3DD69D1@IMCMBX1.MITRE.ORG> <18F8D12C-DAA0-4F30-B405-9F54C15EACB4@iol.unh.edu> <3C6F21684E7C954193E6C7C4573B762701D3DD7322@IMCMBX1.MITRE.ORG>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.94/8897/Fri Jan 23 07:59:36 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,

Here is a link to the list of all of the different hosts that we have  
performed this testing on:

http://www.iol.unh.edu/services/testing/ipv6/equipment.php

Currently we use the ping application to test PTMUD, however, we would  
be interested in performing addition tests  using various applications.

Thanks,
Tom

On Jan 23, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote:

> Tom,
>
> Many thanks for the information. Could you tell me the OS variants  
> on the hosts and router? Also, do you have any tests involving  
> applications?  I will send you an off-line e-mail to discuss  
> possible additional testing.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jeffrey Dunn
> Info Systems Eng., Lead
> MITRE Corporation.
> (301) 448-6965 (mobile)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Peterson [mailto:thomasp@iol.unh.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 3:38 PM
> To: Dunn, Jeffrey H.
> Cc: Rémi Denis-Courmont; ipv6@ietf.org; Huang, Frank; Sherman, Kurt  
> T.; Liou, Chern; steve_eiserman@uscourts.gov; ipv6-bounces@ietf.org; v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> ; Grayeli, Parisa
> Subject: Re: End System PMTUD behavior question
>
> Hi Jeffrey,
>
> I have attached a picture which shows one of the topologies we use for
> our PMTUD tests.
>
> In this test case we transmit an Echo Request from REF-Host2 to TAR-
> Host1 with a packet size of 1500 bytes. REF-Host2 fragments the Echo
> Request it transmits. TAR-Host1 replies to this Echo Request with an
> Echo Reply to REF-Host2 with a size of 1500 bytes that is not
> fragmented. TAR-Router1 sends a Packet Too Big message in response as
> this Echo Reply is too large to forward onto Network 2.
>
> In all of the cases we have seen TAR-Host1 does fragment future Echo
> Replies to REF-Host2, however, it does not retransmit any Echo Replies
> for Echo Requests received prior to receiving the Packet Too Big
> message from TAR-Router1.
>
> Additionally from the tests we have performed in our lab if TAR-Host1
> were to send an Echo Request with a packet size of 1500 bytes TAR-
> Router1 would send a Packet Too Big message in response. In all cases
> we have seen TAR-Host1 would not re-transmit this Echo Request and
> this would be counted as packet loss in the ping command results.
>
> If this does not ideally match your test scenario we'd be happy to
> work together off-line to replicate your scenario.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>

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