IETF Logo Mail Archive

PMTU blackhole detection

Philip Homburg <pch-6man@u-1.phicoh.com> Sat, 16 April 2011 09:17 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b6B5344D9@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C793E06C9 for <ipv6@ietfc.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 02:17:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QtCE5VVihQGu for <ipv6@ietfc.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 02:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A4E1E0675 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 02:17:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net ([127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #2) id m1QB1d3-0001eKC; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:17 +0200
Message-Id: <m1QB1d3-0001eKC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: PMTU blackhole detection
From: Philip Homburg <pch-6man@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b6B5344D9@u-1.phicoh.com
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:17:02 +0200
Cc: john.loughney@nokia.com, narten@us.ibm.com
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: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 09:17:25 -0000

PMTU blackhole detection seemed so obvious to me, that I never bothered to
find out if there was an RFC specifying that it should be done. That is, until 
I encountered an admin said that he didn't do PMTU blackhole detection because
end-users should just fix their systems (the irony is that this came up when
said admin's systems where broken).

So now I wonder, is this something that should be discussed in 
draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-08.txt?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email