IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Masque] WGLC for "Requirements for a MASQUE Protocol to Proxy IP Traffic"

Chris Box <chris.box.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 11 June 2021 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <chris.box.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: masque@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: masque@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1253F3A4607 for <masque@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 07:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 mtIt24JB9ecU for <masque@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 07:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2a.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2a]) (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 9A7043A45DD for <masque@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 07:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2a.google.com with SMTP id t6so10719670qvp.5 for <masque@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 07:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5l5Rg7n+Lk67x6moRyWd9MQ3dn3f4OBpIk7Ibl2u8Lc=; b=Oaow47oIkM22Xfr7GEVAPFpyEPOng0elhx9MmSF6zXlYzd5ydEBmB3cYANBCfQpgdc NWXNiDAYSQKG10HfhUXIRXKkY+41GYjffTCT3IcrBAyLDrSwVSgHhye4G8I5xX8vftqv o+RL7cgef/nKEnqvVGo0SMGQlvdCJ61c/MQ+VWOFuHJGl1z0KUr0b0vUnFOVdcUWmJsX 5jHMqK14Zdw2yrpCTRxs73lmu3qdVWhvVnlfEb2qhm68svMK2oq3UimxNgyUwE85Te7Q wadQ7fW77/WMZkLiS5Fz2PJGdjOhfoLF2yIJgH9HcI/I2GbEczPCFgVHAhMU8r6AUZTz t7Mg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5l5Rg7n+Lk67x6moRyWd9MQ3dn3f4OBpIk7Ibl2u8Lc=; b=V/wvby3KbjXAFQPR69bu7GX/s0a8Z4zRGGoDXiLBi5IVECxZgF5h1hlvLlVg8AGAjg DLKBb4UGoWPND5nHAKf6Uo46m3ECX51zMcE3ilsb+n7g277sATVOtni4Rtqy7+q0bzEy QOANGwOJ1gVHdioX2E7aqOSMDGKga2851/tVkAiGiHBebO6g2P2cB8B3+nJRiw6FjGd3 WooDzzL5HMV5HCKdlDjxikwGAWTWp9Js88i80H5dJUr/Q+zRTZ0CxZmKC4M1MjJAVOEL EBMWHTO4/gJYCH1r0DRL/m/wIt6yMMpcseIfLISLc+Jin+vnGZFBFJ+4T/6dnwEVfTbL 3s4g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532lO8u8Ug9pFdkf/QgdSTN8B3LJf292RSXugbAa6aRxTv6Dk4FT /5REoYSewvwcnQP61FkRKtW6ewO8FfNAWluNrFk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJysltko1V5TeF3VHmbfmuLzmMZiiZNNEZvd7aRsTwI1fq49V+5jtQ8viZmKqYVhLpULEMRfYWB4FoFvYTxzlCs=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:485:: with SMTP id ay5mr5061536qvb.6.1623421169685; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 07:19:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <d314198b-6c01-4b15-84d8-9896b5fdee80@www.fastmail.com> <CACJ6M14Fn2bXW3AjwTpv84R6XWqagiz4u0FOJBf=yCtwLSzt0w@mail.gmail.com> <CAPDSy+5+ueigB4nygBA9H5uqqDg63=0Tc7uXhYg-JZeMWdwJyQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPDSy+5+ueigB4nygBA9H5uqqDg63=0Tc7uXhYg-JZeMWdwJyQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Box <chris.box.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:19:18 +0100
Message-ID: <CACJ6M15-JZyE3HXHqtk5=j_ErQ-xTpQaeKRA3q0L2urVdX-sBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>, MASQUE <masque@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000023d6ad05c47e3201"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/6NBqmTRmhgNRx8Xe9l3si57YsxM>
Subject: Re: [Masque] WGLC for "Requirements for a MASQUE Protocol to Proxy IP Traffic"
X-BeenThere: masque@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiplexed Application Substrate over QUIC Encryption <masque.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/masque>, <mailto:masque-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/masque/>
List-Post: <mailto:masque@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:masque-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/masque>, <mailto:masque-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 14:19:46 -0000

>
> The endpoints in this document are the endpoints of the tunnel.
> The goal of the MTU requirement is to mention that these endpoints
> can share what they view as the max MTU. That would be the MTU
> of the tunnel itself. You're right that connections that go through the
> tunnel but don't terminate on the tunnel endpoints would need to
> also take into account MTUs for the IP hops on either side of the
> tunnel. One way to accomplish that is PMTUD between the ends of
> that connection.
>

That makes sense. In that case, can we clarify the wording? Something like
this perhaps?

   The protocol will allow tunnel endpoints to inform each other of the Maximum
   Transmission Unit (MTU) they are willing to forward.  This will allow
   avoiding some IP fragmentation, especially as IPv6 does not allow IP
   fragmentation by nodes along the path. In cases where the tunnel endpoint

   is not the same as the communication endpoint, tunnel endpoints are

   expected to apply the guidance on UDP tunnels in [BCP145].


Chris

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email