IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Use cases for PMTUD and PLPMTUD (was: RE: 6MAN: Adoption call on draft-hinden-6man-rfc1981bis-01)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 05 February 2016 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 6A0641AC430 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 11:52:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 BFzwShxwKTHT for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 11:52:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x236.google.com (mail-pf0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B24ED1AC42F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 11:52:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id o185so73749679pfb.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Feb 2016 11:52:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=91kHfgCXV6xAiHM6so4T9A4E3Mb7dWsCJnAZoyEqCIc=; b=Yi1znDicqtSdlmuvtyf40sF/WLrunZ6lR/2CoRga5qC3Fz+dlJ9sRBW7i8hTrS8caZ iIZLKc+3vLZUP2zbqoVbef1DUUGDUBSTUefuU+vhjaPVrLdP3mACAWH9g10IDJEmiSHM ll4oN1ET6246tZJxpMUmIBu4dPlqQf5FyDPmKdXIsxDiwkiImRNhFV66NBciFfvapZnp BYmgrmtBS27eEvUdmYs+79weTJuWVpX5HOYlwLYQDwzXQhQ7eNyUGYOWOHkURje2kEq2 eXLJe4NdZqiZ0I5xfm+SYaU9VZZ1V5wWUzcYbnxndk4VJg6ng0375DPWNc/PU1E5i51v +V2w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=91kHfgCXV6xAiHM6so4T9A4E3Mb7dWsCJnAZoyEqCIc=; b=DWqBDSP1UopqFPI6uhXtyAo27GnaWCKm5r0avx0obdeO1cjh7JFY+GSMEZ0Z+QpAIZ 5vshgmfrwShfTYdmcn3vwX355rHvZGjmUR96krfc2RudKS6JRzGWzpqRPJEwgoSsksBR NlJncXo3+fEUC8BZ4nEecOGZDVfvh+Xr4OtVjwd43/f2M+LyywaJ4LvXR4R9G6JYsmIm xLlueEIkdevDjc/dw6OgIx0LZ8FOOJ8dJdv+Q1VUzl9igYA3D1+iaTnxXLZ2UwU1dTb3 M2xE32E0nzZ2Z8bGkqGvsCcoflraTxF0MITjQEmrYplf/Ql1j6cOcD4XYT5rEtNjKkOu CIhw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORzYkbXzHWAMMjCapIAZqqxuLiyyKO5Xr/OMVoRrlMe3Cflp9utLn4NqmpvwiEgRA==
X-Received: by 10.98.67.149 with SMTP id l21mr22409240pfi.112.1454701940370; Fri, 05 Feb 2016 11:52:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:4357:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:4357:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id yh5sm26356239pab.13.2016.02.05.11.52.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 05 Feb 2016 11:52:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Use cases for PMTUD and PLPMTUD (was: RE: 6MAN: Adoption call on draft-hinden-6man-rfc1981bis-01)
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
References: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983183395EFC6@XCH-BLV-105.nw.nos.boeing.com> <93A717B5-CDAD-4273-B3A3-8A48C984109D@gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <56B4FD7A.3090105@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2016 08:52:26 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <93A717B5-CDAD-4273-B3A3-8A48C984109D@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/BSK7qFtK0L24yZLGdwD0CyXV0Aw>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
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: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 19:52:22 -0000

On 06/02/2016 08:04, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Fred,
> 
>> On Feb 5, 2016, at 10:13 AM, Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
>>
>> Starting this under a new thread, IMHO if we want to promote RFC1981 to standard
>> we should understand its use cases as well as the use cases for RFC4821.
> 
> Sorry for being argumentative, but this is not a requirement to move RFC1981 to Internet Standard.  It’s already at Draft Standard.  See RFC6410.
> 
> Instead continuing the debate over how RFC4821 should be cited in rfc1981bis, I am starting to think that a separate new document could discuss the relationship between the two approaches to learning the MTU, and make some recommendations on how they should be used together or separately.  Perhaps a BCP or update to Node Requirements.
> 
> I don’t think this topic needs to be part of advancing RFC1981.

Yes, that seems right to me.

And in answer to other messages, I think it would be ludicrous to consider
obsoleting RFC 1981. It isn't broken. It is fair to note that in cases where
ICMP fails, PMTUD fails too.

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email