Re: Manual PMTUD [was ...rfc2460bis-08]

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Sat, 18 March 2017 01:33 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
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 844681296AF; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 18:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.198 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 EGk7NKwBD-5P; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 18:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x230.google.com (mail-vk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::230]) (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 457FC1296FD; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 18:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x230.google.com with SMTP id x75so49394607vke.2; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 18:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vHDV1DtJ2rGlnio/wkb0FX1e4diPbG8vlXGL9DeXnT8=; b=XQjQsNlNOqnacY1WNSRCtyBbE+/l5cuoMmsDd0XsEYwtdci9eLzAzLmLRUSAfHn4el L62AfKJkCiUbkuo4XX3QmPRVuAzBTjNHzunxBwKsQWdRs94OKoJijNiDqomKaCNp1PGv 89i4VmdH6TLjWcjZTmG6MIoWKEUcm5Q573t1Bkr9YCHmLqAOWwPHmxuZ39708S0Qt2KK Be5GFN6xFAX6jpJcX1wQcVsWI8SKN3GzTO/SHqoV5gDugoh3Y1pGh61uGKvOnRiFex/d nvESiYNlaSYaqjL0JEx09RuWBJOKTWhVwBaHml3RFBKP4aAL3Ut6w5q9Jgx6AJwMBssw RcJA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vHDV1DtJ2rGlnio/wkb0FX1e4diPbG8vlXGL9DeXnT8=; b=AmGlksZXFOHvXFx+QtvCbUj2NtjZXERbnaLLySI45zP1oFix042k33dz4Z8YhhOmDq 7XC+KkqNc056vkS2IBf5fDve8PZXvQkPL+pwtilgeUW5JqUf7hMKQqmHZ8NKCLv+O4yw hZJecXI1IztaU4n2XNkLklNhaXhJ76yxcbZw6DYXXHAoIHkfHJiQidcsUtJv6hUbLIFE 57G/NHtoOBQK8WEAY19bCS21uJrO+6fngUd5494ObuJzRQTCqJLWeW7ZtBWgnAuc8teH 1DOiShHwOis3btIKRzj0Tr8v/JM6jkaGCE+VUNRVlwrS0P94oAFFfzheg1hhB3FcHl8n +oLQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0PcSDv03aFohO3/yL6SGFVnibr4U0NxRnO46ngHrg2QVJyBcS6U6CbRy2LSmYFQ22b4aBFcrYPS6dKkg==
X-Received: by 10.31.51.12 with SMTP id z12mr2623350vkz.69.1489800702232; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 18:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.36.144 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 18:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <618152cf-b097-6d39-e3eb-84b676fb56b7@gmail.com>
References: <599257D7-532D-4512-929B-D124623EAF35@ericsson.com> <37ED3E78-B23A-4D29-8597-5A63236129B1@cisco.com> <887bd0f0-32a5-56f1-9ac9-703ecb97a760@gmail.com> <80D8FFF0-2674-48A7-A935-11681F5C5A4D@jisc.ac.uk> <A67E1C07-282B-4422-A2FF-86F6CACBD775@cable.comcast.com> <ab7c95a5-9776-24b5-7c26-4c5987d4c948@isi.edu> <ed2f5144-52fb-dda5-1fb4-62be1625b341@gmail.com> <401F52B1-3D41-4174-9425-50571B2D0B9E@jisc.ac.uk> <6d51de4b-3a9d-0f34-1cd2-5bb30caed75e@gmail.com> <DE16D91D-AE7B-4D3C-B8EA-0CB644FB96BD@cable.comcast.com> <CA+b+ER=6dXLiwvLJa84uvpVeH0daGnZ-06P16JD0UutTrbUYyA@mail.gmail.com> <2a808465-58c9-1d5e-700b-f04043b33c1c@gmail.com> <CA+b+ERnL6FjPVRZgVzoay81gX-SkujkgTfd6EB3PM1Sq_HM9yA@mail.gmail.com> <618152cf-b097-6d39-e3eb-84b676fb56b7@gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 12:31:11 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2yhzkPea+fbbQgWNztX_-0tL3yNs8=j4eK3ecy_Z311vg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Manual PMTUD [was ...rfc2460bis-08]
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, "Leddy, John" <John_Leddy@comcast.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/I9VBUm6w2gecQtLVGVIQzynCSp4>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 01:33:30 -0000

On 18 March 2017 at 12:10, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I can use
>> today SRv6 features in my data centers where I consistently know that all
>> interfaces are set for jumbo frames and where hopefully I do not need to
>> worry about MTU since hosts have much lower max MTU configured.
>
> Exactly. That's not the Internet. Internet Standards are for the Internet,
> hence I believe that the AD's decision is the correct one.
>
> (How would you feel about an extension header that MAY be deleted
> by an intermediate node, and MUST be deleted if the next hop's link
> MTU is too small? That's the sort of complexity that allowing header
> insertion would require in order to be acceptable across the Internet
> with broken PMTUD that we have. Also PTB semantics would have to change
> from "PMTU is N bytes" to "Packet exceeded link MTU by X bytes", since
> the source has no idea how much has been added by intermediate systems.
> Or perhaps the intermediate systems would have to send back a new
> ICMPv6 message saying "I extended your packet by Y bytes." This is
> not straightforward.)


And that may not work anyway, because some security people believe all
ICMP is evil.

The Linux kernel has had an implementation of PLPMTUD since 2006, so
it is now literally in billions of devices, however it is switched off
by default. I've commonly switched it on over the years* and never
encountered a noticeable issue when I have (i.e., I've never had an
issue that has made me suspect a PMTUD problem and caused me to
investigate, and I've always been on a dumbell MTU PPPoE setup since
getting broadband 15 years ago.)

Would a BCP saying to implement it or enable it if already be
implemented in hosts be a better approach to encourage its adoption,
rather than just continuing to accept the status quo of hosts that
can't perform PMTUD successfully because of broken networks?

Regards,
Mark.


*
# net.ipv4.tcp_mtu_probing sysctl
#tcp_mtu_probing - INTEGER
# Controls TCP Packetization-Layer Path MTU Discovery.  Takes three
# values:
#  0 - Disabled
#  1 - Disabled by default, enabled when an ICMP black hole detected
#  2 - Always enabled, use initial MSS of tcp_base_mss.