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

otroan@employees.org Sat, 04 February 2017 18:40 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 00F4612950B; Sat, 4 Feb 2017 10:40:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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] 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 500VxY8EfptD; Sat, 4 Feb 2017 10:40:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2AEF1294BA; Sat, 4 Feb 2017 10:40:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 04 Feb 2017 18:40:39 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3379DD788B; Sat, 4 Feb 2017 10:40:39 -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=+nAUwmE2HDzkl7YJ2+pb6FB3QpA=; b= Ylmy9+UCTP6dgRPgtWieNw/+Ud1fYq8fCoyeoqXl5w+sa9yXEmPZ8Ho+7xm1R1k1 +ZXXsAE76RtSR8HVTpNBJoPsepHgoKrrXcBWMcVsCCE60FYsdLAFqa8DqbYKTEFU /9Volp09jDInXbOz5zVhwzHhcAonlnq7CC6An6q3ucc=
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=lln2//4v/pzbCrq2E1ER9qI lgT3/+HgNxrfiyUot+SFwv8zkXJbig06R1uvYGRex/mejWQFpO4X6v3JPRP3oNcS O3tbedYI3rEybWLjbJkEeJhSohlzZmtl8GsILp7/W99zI+LlKEF7L8SbWMhgFPfx F7Up+/BtJxYPSopEnspg=
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 073CBD788A; Sat, 4 Feb 2017 10:40:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1D8E841116F; Sat, 4 Feb 2017 19:40:36 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <3A5429F6-0EA6-436A-AF30-E55C9026F456@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DD8FD33D-FE8D-4C53-B8E5-620BE77F2552"; 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: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 19:40:36 +0100
In-Reply-To: <C0A114C1-5E4A-4B8E-A408-55AF1E30873F@netapp.com>
To: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/mndBI27h0m54H2eTNaWMYLwa6Bw>
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>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.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: Sat, 04 Feb 2017 18:40:42 -0000

Lars,

>> 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.

Looking just at our specifications, we cannot state that PLMTUD can replace PMTUD. Take RFC2473 (IPv6 tunnelling) for example.

O.