RE: End System PMTUD behavior question

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Wed, 21 January 2009 20:36 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 643A43A6A70; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:36:25 -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 BA7393A69ED; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:36:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.702, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 PCyDela959Db; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:36:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010323A6937; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:36:22 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.37,302,1231113600"; d="scan'208";a="131838859"
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Jan 2009 20:36:06 +0000
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n0LKa6cY001366; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:36:06 -0800
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0LKa5if013425; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:36:06 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:36:05 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: End System PMTUD behavior question
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:35:16 -0500
Message-ID: <B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D0632C176@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <3C6F21684E7C954193E6C7C4573B762701D3DD67DA@IMCMBX1.MITRE.ORG>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: End System PMTUD behavior question
Thread-Index: Acl7+fSDtCRQmHdATNy7UebOW+92QAACmYbg
References: <3C6F21684E7C954193E6C7C4573B762701D3DD67DA@IMCMBX1.MITRE.ORG>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: "Dunn, Jeffrey H." <jdunn@mitre.org>, <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>, <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, "6man mailing list" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jan 2009 20:36:05.0501 (UTC) FILETIME=[E1FF9AD0:01C97C07]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1348; t=1232570166; x=1233434166; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20<shemant@cisco. com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20End=20System=20PMTUD=20behavior=20quest ion |Sender:=20; bh=5VcY43xFzxCP+Hg7gwu5fG4zFKyh0ND6GiJqnqyBUCQ=; b=ufrza3ekF5veDe40jDmKro5mNoqsul7uTdtRW1mnudt9p3uDb8T1CTQbcs T9inGJTB9tpgGb9wVlX4+9ISk+Hmn2HZScEUBWPvuc1qQ11fP1H5/bUcdt+m NyecpZ9oN6;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
Cc: "Huang, Frank" <fhuang@mitre.org>, "Sherman, Kurt T." <ksherman@mitre.org>, "Grayeli, Parisa" <pgrayeli@mitre.org>, "Liou, Chern" <csliou@mitre.org>, steve_eiserman@uscourts.gov
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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org > The following questions occurred to us:

>  1. Should the hosts re-transmit the ICMPv6 echo request(s) in
fragments? 

If the ICMPv6 echo reqs were being used for PMTUD, the answer should be
a No.  The host just received an Indication of Too Big that also said
the PMTU is 1280, so the host should be sending any subsequent packets
keeping PMTU of 1280 in mind without have to fragment. Then my question
is, if ICMPv6 is not being used for PMTUD, then for what purpose is
ICMPv6 being used such that an ICMPv6 req of 1500 is needed when a req
of size 1280 can be sent?

>  2. If not, should the host that sent two echo requests have waited
for a response in support of PMTUD? 

PMTUD does recommend a host send a probe and wait for a timeout interval
before sending another probe. The RFCs recommend five times larger
timeout value that the normal timeout of the protocol/app being used to
probe.  So, say, the ICMPv6 timeout being used in your test is 2 secs,
then the host should wait for 10 secs for a reply.  See RFC 4821 for
timeout recommendations for how long to wait for a probe reply.  In your
test case, I have got to believe, the Too Big error reached the host in
10 secs of sending the ICMPv6 req - the first hop router is most likely
to catch the Too Big condition and respond to the probe.

Hemant 

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