Re: Another proposal to think about
sytek!rfox@Sun.COM (Rich Fox) Thu, 23 November 1989 02:09 UTC
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by acetes.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34) id AA04191; Wed, 22 Nov 89 18:09:59 PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA12291; Wed, 22 Nov 89 18:09:30 -0800
Received: from sun.Sun.COM (sun-bb.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02640; Wed, 22 Nov 89 18:09:19 PST
Received: from sytek.UUCP by sun.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA01134; Wed, 22 Nov 89 17:37:25 PST
Received: by sytek.hls.hac.com (5.51/5.17) id AA14505; Wed, 22 Nov 89 16:23:40 PST
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1989 16:23:40 -0800
From: sytek!rfox@Sun.COM
Message-Id: <8911230023.AA14505@sytek.hls.hac.com>
To: mtudwg
Subject: Re: Another proposal to think about
It seems that at this point there are 2 proposed solutions to the MTU discovery problem. 1. RFC 1063 2. Steve Deering's idea of using a bit in IP and a new ICMP message. After talking with Jeff it seems that there are enough problems with 1 that we might concentrate on solution 2. After looking at the draft paper for #2 I have the following concerns: 1. I really do not think that we should be changing the meaning of the IP header for such a feature. My understanding is that powers above won't allow the IP header to change, except possibly for something absolutely ness. I am not sure that this feature would qualify. 2. I feel that this is an interm solution until a proper solution is devised, or this solution proves to be the best solution. Addressing the concerns I think that using the RF bit is possibly not required for this solution to work. In fact, I am not sure that the ICMP message is actually required (it might be a nice thing to have in any case). Lets look at a solution that does not use the RF bit, the following scenarios should exist (I have only assumed TCP as the transport protocol, this may not hold for all transport protocols): The TCP's send in the SYN and SYN-ACK packets MSS options that reflect the known MTU of their connected networks (just as they should already*). The smaller of the 2 MSS's will be selected as the MSS to be used in the connection. This gives us an upper bound on the MTU but may still be too large. There may be a network in between the 2 that cannot support the agreed upon MTU. Thus, the following scenarios may take place. * see scenario 2. Scenario 1: Both stations have implemented the MTU discovery feature: 1. Station A sends to station B a packet that will be fragmented. 2. Station B receives the packet and informs the transport layer what the size of fragment 0 is (Steve's paper suggests that this feature is needed anyways). 3. Station B then sends a packet back to station A with a new MSS option that resembles the size of fragment 0. 4. If the packet with the new MSS is lost, no problem. The next time Station B receives a fragmented packet it will send out another MSS option. It will do this until a packet finally reaches Station A. Thus we see, that as long as IP supplies the transport layer with some information about the size of fragment 0 this solution works fine to a point (there are some issues that I will hit upon later). Scenario 2: Only one station has implemented the MTU discovery feature: This scenario will be the same as in scenario 1 except only the host that has implemented this feature will be able (or should I say have the smarts) to send the MSS in non-SYN packet. This has the possible effect that if the host sending the data is the host with the smarts and the host receiving the data is only sending ACKS then the sender may not find out about the fragmentation that is going on. I do not feel that this will be a problem since typically if a host is communicating to a host that is not on the directly network it chooses a small MSS to be safe. I feel that this will continue such that the host that does not implement the discovery feature will always option for the smallest MTU (one that is known to be safe) and fragmentation should never occur. This solution has 1 major problem. What happens if a link comes back up during the lifetime of a TCP connection which now increases the potential MTU of that connection? How will the connection find out about this increase? According to Steve's paper this really isn't a major problem at all (and I agree). If this is an important issue then I feel that we can build a timer in some place to try and renegotiate the MSS. I haven't specified any details of the timer since I don't think its essential for this note. What this solution tries to do is build upon the knowledge gained from the previous 2 solutions while trying to minizing the required changes to either IP or the transport protocols. I stated that this might be an interm solution because I am inclined to think that the routing protocols should handle this problem. Before I comment on that any more I need to think about it. At this point the solution in this paper I think (after some revision) might do the trick. Sorry if this note is a little haphazard, but its getting late and I am trying to get out of here since I have a long drive ahead of me for Turkey day. Talk to you all next week. rich
- Re: Another proposal to think about Rich Fox
- Re: Another proposal to think about smb
- Re: Another proposal to think about Rich Fox
- Re: Another proposal to think about Philippe Prindeville
- Re: Another proposal to think about smb
- Re: Another proposal to think about Philippe Prindeville
- Re: Another proposal to think about Steve Deering
- Re: Another proposal to think about Steve Deering
- Re: Another proposal to think about Steve Deering
- SMB's proposal: using an IP option for "Report Fr… Jeffrey Mogul
- Re: Another proposal to think about Philippe Prindeville
- Re: Another proposal to think about Jeffrey Mogul