Re: Manual PMTUD [was ...rfc2460bis-08]

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 18 March 2017 12:57 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 B1ECA1270A3; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 05:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 eud7enfHum2l; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 05:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x233.google.com (mail-it0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEC0F12708C; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 05:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x233.google.com with SMTP id g138so54301446itb.0; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 05:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tkWc0b2ZChJRX8iiPTbYTmVafGyhpWKTMVl7y6FOvts=; b=eUlhcupRKHx4dLPeCJW6oyjZYs9OoYygSFpHV0lJCQ+XTrdcXAGXKNNNUp9qabO/Ds Dw/n3vGqDFR7FWURxkasQ9tcx8OaGMLyc7O5N1BRWC5XERLI0mGBknbMEyeSniARcFom 5Zau37K+NhtkE0f7rB/0cM7xkgJdSe75glVcIOG5yvN7oVtFJRtSealL7TWzofbHWqVZ 7rH7kNP4+eOGimOnI1zcBMuBHnOvJT+DEGkUYBltjpY4I554AIvh+ivO1iW4azsryPNm jLwZCa5VsuawMFcOfXNdeJ3KYIzcbkk8kXou99qXEwdonKEJOmzV3ADMTLHUTPt+6Ag4 qQRw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=tkWc0b2ZChJRX8iiPTbYTmVafGyhpWKTMVl7y6FOvts=; b=YuZOWhtlBMmgIL8suNZOdztFkyMbw/gyc094MeLS5pRyJHK67nUywAi1EOnJOUglsM M+jN/IG1WSQKMrjOii9PK5DZ/ScPEXf4wb46IQYESCDgWP6itjXondHhOZBsztXw+GQO nUv30PHacLYMmCXq0jbaL4LahciXjFDQ03dUTEygOH9NR8J9IEtuss37uElRr6wnoLsS 8udzDZpcWfXmtTVQtcvucbK5D5y+JUWJg7EsFtfLhE5eJWIrsvhGkPXvXF0SyiuDcXpG VNgSYX1BZarKI2Xm7deEA7ymEXjoUpOq3OGA5sEEu9l2VIRRVc6B300l8pi7Z1X3ws5e wShQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1BwCL/NCxUQxk2J+YHMu46qerxvg/Es70VZ8FpWimYe0dCBnXEP1L7yApoDMFPhA==
X-Received: by 10.107.25.208 with SMTP id 199mr18353464ioz.62.1489841846249; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 05:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.11.95] (50-76-68-137-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [50.76.68.137]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l19sm5778504ioe.51.2017.03.18.05.57.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 18 Mar 2017 05:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Manual PMTUD [was ...rfc2460bis-08]
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
References: <599257D7-532D-4512-929B-D124623EAF35@ericsson.com> <37ED3E78-B23A-4D29-8597-5A63236129B1@cisco.com> <887bd0f0-32a5-56f1-9ac9-703ecb97a760@gmail.com> <80D8FFF0-2674-48A7-A935-11681F5C5A4D@jisc.ac.uk> <A67E1C07-282B-4422-A2FF-86F6CACBD775@cable.comcast.com> <ab7c95a5-9776-24b5-7c26-4c5987d4c948@isi.edu> <ed2f5144-52fb-dda5-1fb4-62be1625b341@gmail.com> <401F52B1-3D41-4174-9425-50571B2D0B9E@jisc.ac.uk> <6d51de4b-3a9d-0f34-1cd2-5bb30caed75e@gmail.com> <DE16D91D-AE7B-4D3C-B8EA-0CB644FB96BD@cable.comcast.com> <CA+b+ER=6dXLiwvLJa84uvpVeH0daGnZ-06P16JD0UutTrbUYyA@mail.gmail.com> <2a808465-58c9-1d5e-700b-f04043b33c1c@gmail.com> <CA+b+ERnL6FjPVRZgVzoay81gX-SkujkgTfd6EB3PM1Sq_HM9yA@mail.gmail.com> <618152cf-b097-6d39-e3eb-84b676fb56b7@gmail.com> <CA+b+ER=Zwy3ODOfkVNrsvK0S946111f6prSpXLM+e=6u8-W_qA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "Leddy, John" <John_Leddy@comcast.com>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <e4dfd838-629c-07e9-30e1-2be4571c0724@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 01:57:23 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ER=Zwy3ODOfkVNrsvK0S946111f6prSpXLM+e=6u8-W_qA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/lAvPTbnBZtz5Eu2b_i6cEZ5D_8w>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 12:57:29 -0000

On 18/03/2017 22:15, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 2:10 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> I can use
>>> today SRv6 features in my data centers where I consistently know that all
>>> interfaces are set for jumbo frames and where hopefully I do not need to
>>> worry about MTU since hosts have much lower max MTU configured.
>>
>> Exactly. That's not the Internet. Internet Standards are for the Internet,
>> hence I believe that the AD's decision is the correct one.
>>
> 
> 
> ​Well I don't know .. Protocols are used both in the open Internet and in
> the contained ​environments. Hence IANA allocations and draft progress
> should be encouraged regardless if something is to be deployed in the
> Internet or not.

That's true, and that's why I'm very open to the idea of local-use
allocations in general. But for the IP protocol above all, we need
Internet-wide interoperability in the Internet Standard.

    Brian

> 
> Now as customer I do encourage multi-vendor networks even for closed
> RFC1918 private WAN, MAN or DCs.
> 
> If we just drop and position IETF to work on "Internet" only use cases
> where would interoperability of routing protocols and beyond fall under ?
> Which SDO ?
> 
> 
> (How would you feel about an extension header that MAY be deleted
>> by an intermediate node, and MUST be deleted if the next hop's link
>> MTU is too small?
> 
> 
> 
> ​Well SRH can be applied both as a mission critical or optimization. If it
> is an optimisation ​indicated in the packet by a flag I would be fine to
> remove it if it does not fit to the MTU of the link.
> 
> If it is however "MUST HAVE" for a given flow I would rather see a packet
> drop then to continue forwarding without it.
> 
> Both such events should indeed be signaled to the "owner" of the SRH or any
> other extension header either inbound via for example ICMPv6 or maybe by
> some other targeted message or indicated out of band (via logging to
> syslog) - applicable to single administration domain.
> 
> ​Kind regards,
> Robert.​
>