IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Fri, 05 February 2016 19:01 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 A04801A8833 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 11:01:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 UHojLEhS9kyT for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 11:01:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blv-mbsout-02.boeing.com (blv-mbsout-02.boeing.com [130.76.32.232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0777C1A882B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 11:00:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id u15J15tp026295; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 11:01:05 -0800
Received: from XCH-BLV-103.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-blv-103.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.118]) by blv-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id u15J0v3a026071 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Fri, 5 Feb 2016 11:00:57 -0800
Received: from XCH-BLV-105.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.5.221]) by XCH-BLV-103.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.3.127]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 11:00:51 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, "otroan@employees.org" <otroan@employees.org>
Subject: RE: Use cases for PMTUD and PLPMTUD (was: RE: 6MAN: Adoption call on draft-hinden-6man-rfc1981bis-01)
Thread-Topic: Use cases for PMTUD and PLPMTUD (was: RE: 6MAN: Adoption call on draft-hinden-6man-rfc1981bis-01)
Thread-Index: AdFgPnAxn72vBLTpQqid+VAMpL4ryQARzbYAAA+V7eA=
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 19:00:50 +0000
Message-ID: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983183395F14A@XCH-BLV-105.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983183395EFC6@XCH-BLV-105.nw.nos.boeing.com> <56B4E91C.6090905@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <56B4E91C.6090905@si6networks.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.247.104.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Ci-xAlYE_LrHEY65Y33kvVst9Ng>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "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 19:01:01 -0000

Hi Fernando,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fgont@si6networks.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 10:26 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L; otroan@employees.org
> Cc: Bob Hinden; 6man WG; Fred Baker (fred)
> Subject: Re: Use cases for PMTUD and PLPMTUD (was: RE: 6MAN: Adoption call on draft-hinden-6man-rfc1981bis-01)
> 
> On 02/05/2016 03:13 PM, Templin, Fred L 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.
> >
> > First, it is reasonable to expect that paths that begin and end within the same
> > well-managed administrative domain can be counted on to deliver the necessary
> > ICMPs. An example is my employer's corporate network. In that case, traditional
> > PMTUD per RFC1981(bis) can be applied alone w/o having to apply RFC4821.
> >
> > On the other hand, paths that lead to Internet destinations cannot be counted
> > on to deliver the necessary ICMPs. In that case, RFC4821 provides a mitigation.
> >
> > But, if we do not believe that there are paths for which traditional PMTUD
> > can still be used safely, then we should be working to deprecate RFC1981
> > instead of making it a standard.
> 
> Well, the thing here that you can do RFC1981-only, RFC4821-only, or
> RFC1981/RFC4821 (should I say "dual stack"? :-) ).
> 
> With that in mind, one could as well have both RFC1981 and RFC4821 as
> standards, I guess...
> 
> But yes, generally speaking, RFC1981-only is certaianly unreliable.

Except for within well-managed administrative domains where RFC1981-only
is sufficient. They do exist; I am typing this message from within one right now.

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> 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