Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04

otroan@employees.org Tue, 14 February 2017 19:16 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 B71E11296B2; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:16:52 -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 ZVjaTKiFuvW3; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:16:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 301B9129603; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:16:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2017 19:16:51 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B67D788A; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:16:50 -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=wPMheHye/k6TPP7yBAQ3/E5Lf+8=; b= Prnp1qMQ3lJVha8eIgu9mPhoGeU4UJN6pqwiPZPYXV4qacjQGZRh5OS/qRzh//+a eU+xpDOrc/TGrzdIBhl9qRYutWQ6s8TjiVt7q/CJhFtaDy8FwA77gX1JzDXCzdZz LqNFrngL1SvzDsJ/qeg1c0arG/6Qw065Eq+5qREmnTU=
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=I8EVsHdJz8SFNAno7z5w7aA aWZlCpTpYXbEkwNF9EMEjTm9q2saGpNp8Ywk60U37HXr82i41YLS9O9RFaaWr+jG AGi2Sr3Svgx8eO3doaU0K3cSAfwNcTVz5QV12/xmIxkyA5BNdyS2JNUKboM+9E6D Ia4+KH2iVJUEZYE1SgVc=
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 B18BED788E; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:16:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB8CD8AE4338; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:16:56 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <6E42D46A-06BC-4C6D-8411-FA969164CD41@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2694A017-1EEE-4F68-9975-E62A7DADF56B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:16:56 +0100
In-Reply-To: <097680c30ae64d74b0c30ffcaeb4c112@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
References: <148665359396.20513.9749548375095869760.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <2997d33f-3884-7831-50ed-1713c93b3867@gmail.com> <b9dfd941-0eba-c257-fef4-2f5e6bbd82a8@gmail.com> <078b28a9a26540da9e4caaba4c436cd3@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <440c60d3-0687-c7f1-f8b6-19620e6f618a@gmail.com> <6cb665e0a2244dae93e1b5b91bd9495a@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <fce8c0ef-25b7-9ba7-a5bf-9b5d7f2b19fc@gmail.com> <f4f81574e09e45169438d39afeb83369@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <1fb9a3ad-19e5-0b35-d15a-e74fed88bb8b@gmail.com> <57307617-C87C-4430-B92A-59E28C6779CD@employees.org> <097680c30ae64d74b0c30ffcaeb4c112@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/yE0Xd-Ka_9XiBTByq7zDA3c2uAY>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis.all@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: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 19:16:53 -0000

Fred,

>> Yes, but sending at 1280 does not work for IP tunnels. The whole purpose of the minimum MTU was to give space for tunnel headers
>> (1500-1280).
> 
> But, if non-tunnel links set a 1280 MTU which is perfectly OK with the standard then
> there is no space for headers. Given the issues with classical PMTUD then (plus the
> non-applicability of RFC4821 for tunnels) the only solution for tunnels is fragmentation.
> I'll let Joe step in if he wants to.

You are correct. "Does not work for IP tunnels without fragmenting the outer header" is what I should have written.
Of course it appears IPv6 fragments have a order of magnitude higher drop probability than ICMP PMTUD messages.

Pick your poison.

Best regards,
Ole