IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: DISCUSS's on rfc1981bis - MK Comments

"Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Fri, 19 May 2017 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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 22BB8128B93 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 May 2017 07:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=ietf@kuehlewind.net header.d=kuehlewind.net
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 xUbBN-r9d5e3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 May 2017 07:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kuehlewind.net (kuehlewind.net [83.169.45.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D130128959 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 May 2017 07:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=kuehlewind.net; b=V572vT7Fd7xWzLMU647ZaFPDfZbJpaJboq2BL/5UDD2zfVMd8ATUzZJwqO4g4ISzdtQVrudRiS4+qeUsFv1FFtINl2H/9vLSUZkhJiCO1TUJtcjhEyMEDvDFJphsnbKEp87w64ldgheWQrX2CtVLKf9YO7IqmUbLP1iUA5SaMUQ=; h=Received:Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer:X-PPP-Message-ID:X-PPP-Vhost;
Received: (qmail 10121 invoked from network); 19 May 2017 16:51:03 +0200
Received: from unknown (HELO ?172.20.31.112?) (66.171.169.35) by kuehlewind.net with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 19 May 2017 16:51:02 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: DISCUSS's on rfc1981bis - MK Comments
From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <5911B0EE.6080802@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 10:51:01 -0400
Cc: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EC313F56-0193-4510-9CCB-4AEF85F3E590@kuehlewind.net>
References: <FF803F19-4253-4422-AFA5-B99A8894BD83@gmail.com> <5911B0EE.6080802@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-PPP-Message-ID: <20170519145103.10116.20599@lvps83-169-45-111.dedicated.hosteurope.de>
X-PPP-Vhost: kuehlewind.net
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/JYJFHuYl5ZHHWdl-16ZV5O8G-kg>
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: Fri, 19 May 2017 14:51:09 -0000

Hi Gorry, hi all,

thanks for the work and the update. All comments from Gorry seemed fine to me and I will try to review the changes in the updated doc soon. One more minor comment on this:

> Am 09.05.2017 um 08:07 schrieb Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>:
> 
>> I don't understand the following paragraph. Can this be removed?
>> "Note: A packetization layer must not retransmit in response to
>> every Packet Too Big message, since a burst of several oversized
>> segments will give rise to several such messages and hence several
>> retransmissions of the same data. If the new estimated PMTU is
>> still wrong, the process repeats, and there is an exponential
>> growth in the number of superfluous segments sent."
>> 
> GF: I think the example is important. I'm not sure why that would be removed.

The problem is I don’t understand this example. Is there an assumption that all mtu probe packets have been ‚generated‘ on the same packet? If so that makes sense but must the spelled out somewhere!

Mirja

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email