IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-van-beijnum-multi-mtu-05.txt

David Lamparter <equinox@diac24.net> Fri, 15 April 2016 13:24 UTC

Return-Path: <equinox@diac24.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 0B7DB12DB32 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 06:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 7R3L1Y87yQAP for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 06:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eidolon.nox.tf (eidolon.nox.tf [IPv6:2a02:238:f02a:8e2f:1::]) (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 7AD8C12D742 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 06:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from equinox by eidolon.nox.tf with local (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <equinox@diac24.net>) id 1ar3j9-000CY1-32; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:24:05 +0200
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:24:03 +0200
From: David Lamparter <equinox@diac24.net>
To: otroan@employees.org
Subject: Re: draft-van-beijnum-multi-mtu-05.txt
Message-ID: <20160415132403.GT518778@eidolon>
References: <20160406151831.GZ518778@eidolon> <570569C2.4030601@acm.org> <20160406212048.GB518778@eidolon> <20160406220411.GC518778@eidolon> <E27329D1-400E-4470-8277-64A664508854@employees.org> <20160414122245.GN518778@eidolon> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1604141512140.16013@uplift.swm.pp.se> <46AC6821-DB5F-4092-8C30-121D5CA3302A@employees.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <46AC6821-DB5F-4092-8C30-121D5CA3302A@employees.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/P9Skp2KrsYAni2eGlPSkXJMBu0U>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 15 Apr 2016 13:24:13 -0000

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:45:05AM +0200, otroan@employees.org wrote:
> > This would however require that we allow MTUs tied to not only PIO, but also RIO. I still don't know what to do about the implicit default route that one points to anyone one sees an RA from. Personally I consider this design of the IPv6 protocol to be unfortunate.
> 
> When you get MTU path discovery in BGP advertisements then we'll put it in the RIO. ;-)

BGP is TCP, right?  Let's put PLMTUD on it :3

-David

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email