IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 6MAN: Adoption call on draft-hinden-6man-rfc1981bis-01

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 04 February 2016 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B78391ACDBC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 11:04:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 AN4UtxpeSi8X for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 11:04:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CB1E1ACDB1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 11:04:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.3.107] (unknown [181.165.125.191]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E100D206AC2; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 20:04:14 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: 6MAN: Adoption call on draft-hinden-6man-rfc1981bis-01
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
References: <9C0F366C-4887-4A63-8422-1C370F9CBD3E@employees.org> <DB69251C-55E5-4577-9C0A-0541A8946940@cisco.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <56B3A062.4090108@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 16:02:58 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DB69251C-55E5-4577-9C0A-0541A8946940@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/607D-6HjohoeVprdAdOxrWkfNyw>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 19:04:21 -0000

On 02/04/2016 01:44 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> 
> Regarding the point Fred Templin has raised (a stronger
> recommendation for RFC 4821), I worry just a bit about the level of
> experience we have with it. Like Fred, I really like the concept. I
> know it is implemented in Linux, but its use by an application in
> optional, and AFAIK no applications actually use it. The authors
> might have more to say, but I don't think we're ready for a
> recommendation.

My recollection of discussing this with Linux devs at the time was that
they'd use RFC4821 mostly for blackhole detection than as a complete
ICMP-less PMTUD. The reason? -- convergence time.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email