IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt> (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Wed, 09 October 2013 00:46 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.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 3CED521F9FB0; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 17:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.724
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.724 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cSG7XsC3eMZP; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 17:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from db8outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (mail-db8lp0189.outbound.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2041C21F9FA3; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 17:46:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail134-db8-R.bigfish.com (10.174.8.230) by DB8EHSOBE027.bigfish.com (10.174.4.90) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 00:46:32 +0000
Received: from mail134-db8 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail134-db8-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63DEDA00C7; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 00:46:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -21
X-BigFish: VPS-21(zz9371I542I1432Izz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1de098h1033IL1de097h8275dhz2fh2a8h839h944hd24hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1de9h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1fe8h1ff5h9a9j1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail134-db8: domain of juniper.net designates 157.56.240.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.101; envelope-from=rbonica@juniper.net; helo=BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(51704005)(377454003)(199002)(189002)(13464003)(54316002)(56776001)(85306002)(81686001)(76482001)(65816001)(66066001)(80022001)(74366001)(79102001)(77982001)(63696002)(59766001)(81816001)(74876001)(74706001)(83072001)(69226001)(47736001)(49866001)(50986001)(47976001)(53806001)(4396001)(46102001)(51856001)(54356001)(80976001)(31966008)(47446002)(74662001)(19580405001)(74502001)(83322001)(19580395003)(81542001)(74316001)(76796001)(76786001)(76576001)(81342001)(77096001)(33646001)(56816003)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR05MB436; H:BLUPR05MB433.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:66.129.232.2; FPR:; RD:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Received: from mail134-db8 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail134-db8 (MessageSwitch) id 138127959026135_8924; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 00:46:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from DB8EHSMHS018.bigfish.com (unknown [10.174.8.238]) by mail134-db8.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBBF6480067; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 00:46:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by DB8EHSMHS018.bigfish.com (10.174.4.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 00:46:29 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB436.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.27.152) by BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.100.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.371.2; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 00:46:28 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB433.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.27.140) by BLUPR05MB436.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.27.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.785.10; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 00:46:27 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB433.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.16.72]) by BLUPR05MB433.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.16.72]) with mapi id 15.00.0785.001; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 00:46:27 +0000
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt> (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt> (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AQHOv6KsdJvRhXd90UuLWVq4yr1RsZnlBPWAgASNmgCAAXGqAIAAjlqg
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 00:46:27 +0000
Message-ID: <9e33a47bb2834c15ba4269ae8c79c46f@BLUPR05MB433.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20131002185522.20697.96027.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831811AEFC@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831811BDD3@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <9300F272-E282-41C3-9DA8-59134B975FC7@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <9300F272-E282-41C3-9DA8-59134B975FC7@employees.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.232.2]
x-forefront-prvs: 0994F5E0C5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 00:46:44 -0000

I agree with Ole.

       Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Ole Troan
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 12:17 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; IETF-Announce
> Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt>
> (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard
> 
> Fred,
> 
> > Hi, I would like to make a small amendment to what I said in my
> > previous message as follows:
> >
> > 4) Section 5, change the final paragraph to:
> >
> >   "As a result of the above mentioned requirements, a packet's header
> >   chain length MUST fit within the Path MTU associated with its
> >   destination.  Hosts MAY discover the Path MTU, using procedures
> such
> >   as those defined in [RFC1981] and [RFC4821]. However, if a host
> does
> >   not discover the Path MTU, it MUST assume the IPv6 minumum MTU of
> >   1280 bytes [RFC2460]. The host MUST then limit each packet's header
> >   chain length to the Path MTU minus 256 bytes in case additional
> >   encapsulation headers are inserted by tunnels on the path."
> 
> I would claim that additional encapsulation headers are already
> considered in the 1280 minimum MTU.
> as in: 1500 - 1280.
> 
> cheers,
> Ole

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status