Re: TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU
Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Sun, 18 October 2015 22:58 UTC
Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 E8C4B1B29C9; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 e_wq6mJ4fhOs; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [199.6.1.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58D9D1B29BA; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CF4E1FCAB7; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 22:58:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B95F16003C; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 22:58:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC831160086; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 22:58:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id gPnxRCjBhg93; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 22:58:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c122-106-161-187.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [122.106.161.187]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCE2816003C; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 22:58:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A33903AB089A; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:58:06 +1100 (EST)
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <20151016034110.306563A939AB@rock.dv.isc.org> <20151016202620.GI1442@verdi> <20151016203155.3D2473AA8817@rock.dv.isc.org> <56217BAB.2040608@gmail.com> <20151016225655.CC0653AA9E81@rock.dv.isc.org> <5622C7A6.6000200@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:11:50 +1300." <5622C7A6.6000200@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:58:06 +1100
Message-Id: <20151018225806.A33903AB089A@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/TCCpe_0-4BSzie-NtGBsJCYjgNg>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, 6man@ietf.org
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: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 22:58:17 -0000
In message <5622C7A6.6000200@gmail.com>, Brian E Carpenter writes: > I think that > (a) This draft should not be Informational, it should become a BCP. > (b) I suspect it belongs in v6ops rather than 6man, since it doesn't > change anything in the standards. Isn't this similar to RFC6691 which was only informational? That said I don't care which w.g. processes this so long as it gets processed. Similarly w.r.t. to the category. Lets let the chairs decide which w.g. For v6ops this is https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-andrews-tcp-and-ipv6-use-minmtu/ Mark > (c) I think it doesn't say quite enough about how this is a very serious > and recurrent operational problem which causes real damage to IPv6 deployment > . > > Also - it's not OK that POSIX hasn't yet picked up the advanced socket API > and that it isn't available in all programming languages with socket calls. > We, for some value of "we", need to campaign to get this fixed. > > Brian > > > On 17/10/2015 11:56, Mark Andrews wrote: > > In message <56217BAB.2040608@gmail.com>, Brian E Carpenter writes: > >> On 17/10/2015 09:31, Mark Andrews wrote: > >>> > >>> In message <20151016202620.GI1442@verdi>, John Leslie writes: > >>>> Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Please see > >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-andrews-tcp-and-ipv6-use-minmtu-00.txt > >>>>> > >>>>> It addresses what should be obviously done but isn't by many > >>>>> implementations. > >>>> > >>>> Alas, this draft gives no clue _how_ to check IPV6_USE_MINMTU ... > >>>> (or, for that matter, how to set it). > >>>> > >>>> One could reasonably guess that s/he should look through RFC3542 to > >>>> find how to check this; but RFC3542 contains no such string. (It does > >>>> contain the string IPV6_USE_MIN_MTU; but I don't feel justified in > >>>> guessing that far astream... > >> > >> Incidentally, it recently came to my attention that standard Python > >> doesn't support RFC3542. I don't know how widespread that issue is, but > >> it may be behind some of these broken MSS deployments. > >> > >> Brian > > > > The entire advanced socket API is poorly supported because POSIX > > didn't pick it up. > > > > That said I've updated the document based on the feedback received > > to date. > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-andrews-tcp-and-ipv6-use-minmtu-03 > > > >>> Yes, I typo'd that, repeatedly. > >>> > >>>> Perhaps adding a citation to the specific section of a particular > >>>> RFC would help? > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> John Leslie <john@jlc.net> -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
- TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Mark Andrews
- Re: TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU John Leslie
- Re: TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Mark Andrews
- Re: TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Brian E Carpenter
- Re: TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Mark Andrews
- Re: TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Brian E Carpenter
- Re: TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Mark Andrews
- Re: TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Tomoyuki Sahara
- Re: [v6ops] TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Brian E Carpenter
- RE: [v6ops] TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Dave Thaler
- Re: [v6ops] TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Brian E Carpenter