Re: Adding headers and adding options to headers

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-2@u-1.phicoh.com> Thu, 12 May 2016 09:09 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.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 BB25312D139 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 May 2016 02:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <1LAhcqoYFnvN>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "To"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 1LAhcqoYFnvN for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 May 2016 02:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14F2712D096 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 May 2016 02:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #91) id m1b0mc2-0000ESC; Thu, 12 May 2016 11:08:54 +0200
Message-Id: <m1b0mc2-0000ESC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Subject: Re: Adding headers and adding options to headers
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-2@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <A88D0044-5DB6-44B6-905F-925C156B18E0@cisco.com> <792E3875-2DB8-4A77-B7A1-3AC70400F371@cisco.com> <3c7d2448-3254-84e5-82f4-78e0a9aec332@gmail.com> <D04EF23B-3163-4DDB-B5AD-8FE6ACA35F9D@employees.org> <81014ff6-671d-1990-3050-57b05e2737fc@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqeS_Dg7n0Pu+BbO1L=Ee8_sRrH-5sGG-vVcEb9sswYELA@mail.gmail.com> <9B450B41-0E6E-47E6-B26B-936E44DFCBF6@employees.org> <dd297fa4-3c6a-e188-4e85-655b01371b07@gmail.com> <14024.1463003151@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 11 May 2016 17:45:51 -0400 ." <14024.1463003151@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:08:52 +0200
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/lgzCMQyI4Cy24NVIzsgQq7fF2n8>
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: Thu, 12 May 2016 09:09:01 -0000

>Again: I claim PMTUD is already broken and unfixable.
>(and should be replaced by PLMTUD, which should be turned on by default)
>
>What else does inserting headers break that isn't related to PMTU ICMPs?
>
>(I'm not in favour of inserting headers.  I am in favour of having rational
>and evidence based reasons in our specifications, or they will get ignored).

By and large PMTUD works. It doesn't always work, which is an issue. But
it largely works.

That said in my opinion all hosts MUST do some form of PMTU blackhole
detection. Unfortunately we can't write that down.

Also unfortunately, very few stacks seem to ship with PLMTUD enabled by
default. So any new feature in IPv6 that break PMTUD more is going to put
IPv6 at a significant disadvantage compared to IPv4.

I think we should focus on PMTUD with a fallback to PLMTUD. As far as I
know there are no major stack running with just PLMTUD and we have
no idea how it would work in practice.