IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-van-beijnum-multi-mtu-05.txt

otroan@employees.org Mon, 18 April 2016 07:18 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C03412DA48 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 00:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.336
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.336 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 xMUq0uPmAPtw for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 00:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from incoming.kjsl.com (inbound02.kjsl.com [IPv6:2001:1868:2002::144]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D6F912D9CA for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 00:18:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([IPv6:2001:1868:a000:17::142]) by ironport02.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 18 Apr 2016 07:18:32 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D75B8D7884; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 00:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; s=selector1; bh=NTNYOMCPg9/OxX4rK+nPIdyku1M=; b= JBsbD5OBklTcAyrkgE4BheCcA5YeMhmvmr4V5rQEsBa3Ve1HwyOex69/3x/SnLSf y+uN/evv8Uqtyxh404r7D5733DsEOFXnfmR/f4NgeH5pJiUazwgzbbjtDZ47ksJq YX2OBOcPZneiaKCP+6+dzvUpJx7Yw2TjnZxE57HgT5U=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=UBrDc7NjI3zje9tf7kY6KNloPy 61IMUj8aWjCx9hApDbdsA47i9yfFwatz3bIv7zvcN94oFkuZQEDdOuKYnW1HvfC8 3+X9IvwSoObSRmXajZCCTpiD/gADtVYK2aeOICQwJHr9IcTBY0fn9Lvr0l4poor0 cGuZRE5NsI/JxlrmU=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (unknown [173.38.220.34]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A2445D7883; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 00:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 835A9146996E; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 09:18:39 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: draft-van-beijnum-multi-mtu-05.txt
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0ABBEC58-A189-4D64-8A01-4CFAA8DA2331"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <20160415132403.GT518778@eidolon>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 09:18:39 +0200
Message-Id: <F215510B-8DDC-4904-8C70-AA2B16744820@employees.org>
References: <20160406151831.GZ518778@eidolon> <570569C2.4030601@acm.org> <20160406212048.GB518778@eidolon> <20160406220411.GC518778@eidolon> <E27329D1-400E-4470-8277-64A664508854@employees.org> <20160414122245.GN518778@eidolon> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1604141512140.16013@uplift.swm.pp.se> <46AC6821-DB5F-4092-8C30-121D5CA3302A@employees.org> <20160415132403.GT518778@eidolon>
To: David Lamparter <equinox@diac24.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/0qMFeCUx_SpW7f-bLbKXyZedoIo>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 07:18:37 -0000

Dave,

>>> This would however require that we allow MTUs tied to not only PIO, but also RIO. I still don't know what to do about the implicit default route that one points to anyone one sees an RA from. Personally I consider this design of the IPv6 protocol to be unfortunate.
>> 
>> When you get MTU path discovery in BGP advertisements then we'll put it in the RIO. ;-)
> 
> BGP is TCP, right?  Let's put PLMTUD on it :3

You could, but I was more thinking of including MTU information along with prefix advertisements in BGP. Each BGP writer then rewrites the announced MTU if it's interface MTU is lower. That would be equivalent to associating it with an RIO. Unfortunately the BGP signalling path might not be the same as the data path. ;-)

Cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email