IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Use cases for PMTUD and PLPMTUD (was: RE: 6MAN: Adoption call on draft-hinden-6man-rfc1981bis-01)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 05 February 2016 19:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 E38591A885C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 11:16:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 ELbslYvGcs9w for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 11:16:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40E671A8859 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 11:16:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E5D42009E; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 14:16:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4AA863751; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 14:16:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
Subject: Re: Use cases for PMTUD and PLPMTUD (was: RE: 6MAN: Adoption call on draft-hinden-6man-rfc1981bis-01)
In-Reply-To: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983183395EFC6@XCH-BLV-105.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983183395EFC6@XCH-BLV-105.nw.nos.boeing.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 14:16:13 -0500
Message-ID: <7592.1454699773@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/rEzC81K_he5IVymbI0Q3s_tzP8k>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
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: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 19:16:17 -0000

Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
    > On the other hand, paths that lead to Internet destinations cannot be
    > counted on to deliver the necessary ICMPs. In that case, RFC4821
    > provides a mitigation.

    > But, if we do not believe that there are paths for which traditional
    > PMTUD can still be used safely, then we should be working to deprecate
    > RFC1981 instead of making it a standard.

I think that the mitigation is far more reliable than 1981.
So, I'd rather deprecate RFC1981.

{I noticed that 4821 is not on by default in most Linux distros/kernels,
and I actually want to know if there is some reason for it}

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email