Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04.txt> (Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6) to Internet Standard

otroan@employees.org Tue, 07 February 2017 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 7F9D61295A0; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:20:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 MG6WYa_oQfI9; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:20:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA2C6129461; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:20:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2017 19:20:31 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 115CCD788B; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:20:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=Ul8b8AlinbEJb/sx2BP5BdhvN1A=; b= kGRNfq7EeTTCOlITv1IiCUjMXj4Q7uai4bKUj2oendjSgY2N4CBQOfP9cXNe/eFx QWHj+5RyIrmZ/AhshqLfw6W8C/2hcdkb+5mzAOZOjuFkJNSxa4UoFeHJxS2hIofY lZKBfCxweJj1p/9fr0O1vyVqJjlTzqGyM0NPjfim7r4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=pdFNFoCFLwj1ADaakUyWe1o /8YeR8NABkKyN7+Ohv3cleaMwZfVHopLhMZSmv2pW2D8EGFCRZzvbcojXbqGrWU/ rlJU8ngm+KRADEOfmJTgPKG98lKA+EdHT7DFEISL5aK3dH9R3V6cgdSN1sQd8wNI 1f84XS0HL51t6v3p9N1M=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 986F3D788E; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:20:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68C47865E62B; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 20:20:27 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <7E9AB9E8-3FCB-4475-BEEB-F18CFC4BC752@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_80CF1CA3-844D-451D-8AC2-B679B5C2B9DA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04.txt> (Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6) to Internet Standard
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 20:20:26 +0100
In-Reply-To: <8cf1fe7d-bdfd-5e81-e61f-55d9ecd5d28a@isi.edu>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
References: <148599312602.18643.4886733052828400859.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1859B1D9-9E42-4D65-98A8-7A326EDDE560@netapp.com> <f8291774-409e-2948-3b29-83dbb09d39d9@si6networks.com> <63eaf82e-b6d5-bff5-4d48-479e80ed4698@gmail.com> <2d36e28c-ee7d-20fc-3fec-54561e520691@si6networks.com> <C0A114C1-5E4A-4B8E-A408-55AF1E30873F@netapp.com> <3A5429F6-0EA6-436A-AF30-E55C9026F456@employees.org> <8cf1fe7d-bdfd-5e81-e61f-55d9ecd5d28a@isi.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/cpXTQHQk5Xzq6MboWco52DAxVRg>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis@ietf.org>, "tsv-area@ietf.org" <tsv-area@ietf.org>, "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@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: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 19:20:33 -0000

Joe,

>>>> My apologies: my comments were probably misleading. Certainly, this
>>>> document is simply RFC1981 to Std, and hence recommending RFC4821 would
>>>> be kind of ou of scope, here.
>>>> 
>>>> That say, one might wonder to what extent, and for the general Internet,
>>>> RFC1981 can be considered succesful (given the filtering of ICMP
>>>> messages). -- i.e., at this point in time you wouldn't rely on RFC1981
>>>> (icmp-based pmtud) for path-mtu discovery.
>>> What Fernando said: I'm certainly not opposed to lifting this to Standard, but it is painting an incorrect picture - PLPMTUD is de facto mandatory these days, and has been for years.
>> While I'm all in favour of PLMTUD. It doesn't seem like a complete solution.
>> PMTUD on the other hand supports all protocols on top of IP.
> If by "supports" you mean "doesn't work", then yes. That's why we now
> have PLPMTUD.

PLMTUD is unfortunately not a (complete) replacement of PMTUD.

>> Looking just at our specifications, we cannot state that PLMTUD can replace PMTUD. Take RFC2473 (IPv6 tunnelling) for example.
> See draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels, esp. v03 Section 5.5.2
> 
> (yes, that doc has expired while we're preparing the 04 update, which
> should be issued shortly)

Is this the paragraph you are referring to?

   PLPMTUD requires a separate,
   direct control channel from the egress to the ingress that provides
   positive feedback; the direct channel is not blocked by policy
   filters and the positive feedback ensures fail-safe operation if
   feedback messages are lost [RFC4821].

I'm very much in favour of working on better ways of doing Path MTU discovery.
A blanket statement of "use "PLMTUD" seems very premature though.

RFC1981 has 70 citations:
http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats/citations-rfc1981.html

Could you expand on your view of how this pertains to advancing RFC1981?

Best regards,
Ole