IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> Fri, 03 February 2017 10:22 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@netapp.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 5A563129B8A; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 02:22:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.119
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=netapp.onmicrosoft.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 TJpY0cRuWuue; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 02:22:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx142.netapp.com (mx142.netapp.com [216.240.21.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23693129A82; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 02:22:52 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,328,1477983600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="169079977"
Received: from hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.38]) by mx142-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2017 02:15:00 -0800
Received: from VMWEXCCAS09-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.27) by hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.38) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 02:21:47 -0800
Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (10.120.60.153) by VMWEXCCAS09-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 02:21:47 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netapp.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-netapp-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=DXl8b6Gck+R+sbZRn+o3X1bIPoogSTz1S9nZvbrqjNU=; b=HrzuxIlwxiaVhNYtbS5FYBTJXevhp7sY4oFogv342HdlUD1qYmc9WO5T9GawDfwNyWUh0VFzL7e+3ttwH5tp5DXH7MKaojXC1lMDlAu0nnraIvsscbIIG00dslDe00ayxeOy+qX9V8qHqKyCMIvjl7LYNl44LcpAIrzipc7eAxc=
Received: from BN3PR0601MB1153.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.160.157.18) by BN3PR0601MB1153.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.160.157.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.874.12; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:21:47 +0000
Received: from BN3PR0601MB1153.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.157.18]) by BN3PR0601MB1153.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.157.18]) with mapi id 15.01.0874.025; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:21:47 +0000
From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
To: "otroan@employees.org" <otroan@employees.org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04.txt> (Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6) to Internet Standard
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04.txt> (Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6) to Internet Standard
Thread-Index: AQHSfOZWQnyqff8qTkSuzK39n1gXQaFVdhOAgAGB6ACAABzbgA==
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 10:21:47 +0000
Message-ID: <88A7C2AD-8D33-4AFF-8AF4-A1B8718C47BD@netapp.com>
References: <148599312602.18643.4886733052828400859.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1859B1D9-9E42-4D65-98A8-7A326EDDE560@netapp.com> <014D8A7C-449E-4849-9F49-990FF8B39DEF@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <014D8A7C-449E-4849-9F49-990FF8B39DEF@employees.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=lars@netapp.com;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [217.70.211.15]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 5486baec-7d8c-4d15-767e-08d44c1e75a9
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001); SRVR:BN3PR0601MB1153;
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN3PR0601MB1153; 7:d5ywUeIGYbov9lCXABrLXiUdUbjpoWxSP57m7RNmfxL0IUghZZvgxSAnTB6jCDaJZrDDwj+oPo9/rvknLdI9kMaG0tum33pNMgK1DUM3K3xLYAT1bErB2WGQQrFJUyiCbR+/l06cM7Isj/7+1bMCk1QJD52L07/Gj8zYNsSMUXwsNTs2S/Yj2wwSTvLKK8FghN7vGdDFe6oGAlFBfA8hIMuYx+PP+hHpDLSPJMQ0Ce7X0mvBnJhA72tzcNh9jZuvnoOC085audKT+XH7FyHd0JFFwafMByJZ0D04/RI1yCNJWAXWZ9HPE8L0Gh5g6XxsLj3Mw1SCt/LHLBKNde/jyeTm241pLWKXuyqPuGiVOL0WQhmwLxT0scMbxHAsoU8Cq/uqRii9N2fF7zzUsDuxTMflohYR0GFWrmBM2YOxSFEucr8t3wZIuY1B6wCOfZZzFoSC0rwUIL2PXnLj3GLPWfnGAqgFvTSo9xcRJMcZVybWgd5rgv9qRzxXLfhLTpIGMnOoZYdnF5FfwN654DI1JA==
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN3PR0601MB1153D2301C0CA6FAB8B92BFDA74F0@BN3PR0601MB1153.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(76576733993138)(165104125076784);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(102415395)(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123558025)(20161123555025)(20161123562025)(20161123564025)(20161123560025)(6072148); SRVR:BN3PR0601MB1153; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN3PR0601MB1153;
x-forefront-prvs: 02070414A1
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(7916002)(39450400003)(377424004)(199003)(24454002)(189002)(83716003)(53936002)(6512007)(92566002)(3660700001)(6506006)(229853002)(99286003)(2351001)(4326007)(6246003)(3846002)(106116001)(105586002)(6306002)(106356001)(82746002)(2501003)(66066001)(122556002)(54906002)(53546003)(86362001)(102836003)(6116002)(230783001)(33656002)(57306001)(5660300001)(110136003)(99936001)(38730400001)(2900100001)(2906002)(68736007)(8676002)(6916009)(2950100002)(5640700003)(81156014)(81166006)(1730700003)(6436002)(50986999)(76176999)(25786008)(4001150100001)(8936002)(305945005)(7736002)(77096006)(101416001)(6486002)(97736004)(36756003)(50226002)(3280700002)(189998001)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BN3PR0601MB1153; H:BN3PR0601MB1153.namprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: netapp.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_86CC7C58-C35D-42AF-9A24-173113CEEEE6"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Feb 2017 10:21:47.0352 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 4b0911a0-929b-4715-944b-c03745165b3a
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3PR0601MB1153
X-OriginatorOrg: netapp.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/pNuT5OHiPd4Iqzhlm-y8JIbGccs>
Cc: "tsv-area@ietf.org" <tsv-area@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "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: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 10:22:53 -0000

On 2017-2-3, at 9:38, otroan@employees.org wrote:
>> Given that ICMP delivery cannot be assured over the vast majority of paths in the current Internet, should this document make a recommendation to implement RFC4821?
> 
> Could you please substantiate that assertion?

Matthew Luckie and Ben Stasiewicz. 2010. Measuring path MTU discovery behaviour. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement (IMC '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 102-108. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1879141.1879155

PDF here: https://www.caida.org/~mjl/pubs/measuring-pmtud.pdf

"This paper measures PMTUD behaviour for
50,000 popular websites and finds the failure rate in IPv4
is much less than previous studies. We measure the overall
failure rate between 5% and 18%, depending on the MTU of
the constraining link."

5-18% is pretty bad. I would expect that the widespread deployment of CGNs since this was published in 2010 to not have improved things.

Lars

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status