Re: TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 18 October 2015 23:17 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D96801B29E9; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:17:42 -0700 (PDT)
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 bkVrUxoCp6tU; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x229.google.com (mail-pa0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::229]) (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 14CB01A00F0; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pacfv9 with SMTP id fv9so74790322pac.3; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=O5lOpavDoEY3DPfA8BK3W+jEJeICDZ/OkDpIwQFOz30=; b=MP5YNzmkGuP53C8gpmlewxXOLcKzCbg8dkABOUT7SH2mj15d4xYvkBXh9NpddwA/Is lfYGXkDF5Wu7BCsX+UIrn13WENApAtCbCy3upmTfekjpMsKWms26gBVhrLO7xKkjazex u650iO2U7musUaFSGkQaja79D4ioORq8ElxbF00job0SuWTIz8GRMqCEMCUMZRvYpHiS f68bdq895RUQtmc1rhiVmLrpGzZBCFdQLsc7nRRezeenKBVkTx4ZacdKnRNLy05H2Rok xYfxOlvFDnmOkC/GTIsIkbAwYm+E/DiIM+BsEN+d2acYNel7T5inbaFLSbGEFUiU/4lA mZqQ==
X-Received: by 10.68.164.98 with SMTP id yp2mr30493587pbb.125.1445210258592; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.25] (221.231.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.231.221]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id zi1sm13670706pbc.10.2015.10.18.16.17.34 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <20151016034110.306563A939AB@rock.dv.isc.org> <20151016202620.GI1442@verdi> <20151016203155.3D2473AA8817@rock.dv.isc.org> <56217BAB.2040608@gmail.com> <20151016225655.CC0653AA9E81@rock.dv.isc.org> <5622C7A6.6000200@gmail.com> <20151018225806.A33903AB089A@rock.dv.isc.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <5624288D.9040400@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 12:17:33 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20151018225806.A33903AB089A@rock.dv.isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/p0rBl1JKAdioQuDvgi0oIfHP3fc>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, 6man@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 23:17:43 -0000
On 19/10/2015 11:58, Mark Andrews wrote: > In message <5622C7A6.6000200@gmail.com>, Brian E Carpenter writes: >> I think that >> (a) This draft should not be Informational, it should become a BCP. >> (b) I suspect it belongs in v6ops rather than 6man, since it doesn't >> change anything in the standards. > > Isn't this similar to RFC6691 which was only informational? IMHO that's an error and 6691 should be standards track, but I wasn't involved in that discussion so there may be a reason. > That said I don't care which w.g. processes this so long as it gets > processed. Similarly w.r.t. to the category. Lets let the chairs > decide which w.g. Sure. I would argue for BCP because it really is an operational requirement to get this fixed in all implementations. Brian > > For v6ops this is > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-andrews-tcp-and-ipv6-use-minmtu/ > > Mark > >> (c) I think it doesn't say quite enough about how this is a very serious >> and recurrent operational problem which causes real damage to IPv6 deployment >> . >> >> Also - it's not OK that POSIX hasn't yet picked up the advanced socket API >> and that it isn't available in all programming languages with socket calls. >> We, for some value of "we", need to campaign to get this fixed. >> >> Brian >> >> >> On 17/10/2015 11:56, Mark Andrews wrote: >>> In message <56217BAB.2040608@gmail.com>, Brian E Carpenter writes: >>>> On 17/10/2015 09:31, Mark Andrews wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In message <20151016202620.GI1442@verdi>, John Leslie writes: >>>>>> Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please see >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-andrews-tcp-and-ipv6-use-minmtu-00.txt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It addresses what should be obviously done but isn't by many >>>>>>> implementations. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alas, this draft gives no clue _how_ to check IPV6_USE_MINMTU ... >>>>>> (or, for that matter, how to set it). >>>>>> >>>>>> One could reasonably guess that s/he should look through RFC3542 to >>>>>> find how to check this; but RFC3542 contains no such string. (It does >>>>>> contain the string IPV6_USE_MIN_MTU; but I don't feel justified in >>>>>> guessing that far astream... >>>> >>>> Incidentally, it recently came to my attention that standard Python >>>> doesn't support RFC3542. I don't know how widespread that issue is, but >>>> it may be behind some of these broken MSS deployments. >>>> >>>> Brian >>> >>> The entire advanced socket API is poorly supported because POSIX >>> didn't pick it up. >>> >>> That said I've updated the document based on the feedback received >>> to date. >>> >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-andrews-tcp-and-ipv6-use-minmtu-03 >>> >>>>> Yes, I typo'd that, repeatedly. >>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps adding a citation to the specific section of a particular >>>>>> RFC would help? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
- TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Mark Andrews
- Re: TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU John Leslie
- Re: TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Mark Andrews
- Re: TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Brian E Carpenter
- Re: TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Mark Andrews
- Re: TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Brian E Carpenter
- Re: TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Mark Andrews
- Re: TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Tomoyuki Sahara
- Re: [v6ops] TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Brian E Carpenter
- RE: [v6ops] TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Dave Thaler
- Re: [v6ops] TCP and IPV6_USE_MINMTU Brian E Carpenter