Re: [tcmtf] Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received comments: Problem 2: Path MTU

Luigi,

In some research papers we have somewhat considered the problem of the MTU.
I mean, let' suppose you have a high number of flows to be optimized
together. Then, you define a period to multiplex them. But it may happen
that, before ending the period, you have enough small packets so as to fill
an MTU-sized multiplexed one. At that point, you should end that period,
send the packet and start a new period. If you include a size threshold in
addition to the period, the method is better.

However, perhaps this is just an implementation issue. Do you think we
should recommend this in the documents:
- know the maximum MTU
- use it in addition to the Period in order to trigger the sending of the
multiplexed packet.

Thanks!

Jose

De: Luigi Iannone [mailto:ggx@gigix.net] 
Enviado el: lunes, 10 de febrero de 2014 16:40
Para: Jose Saldana
CC: tcmtf@ietf.org; tsv-area@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received
comments: Problem 2: Path MTU

Hi,

On 5 Feb. 2014, at 13:06 , Jose Saldana < <mailto:jsaldana@unizar.es>
jsaldana@unizar.es> wrote:

Problem:

Gorry: Perhaps we should also look at PMTU issues?

In TCMTF?  I would avoid that. MTU is a common problem for any tunnelling
mechanism I would more support a "tunnel-spefici-independent" solution
(probably to be discussed elsewhere).

ciao

L.

Al: Yes. The operations considerations should be thought about.

Solution: (see this thread:
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00422.html>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00422.html)
The current charter talks about MTU in number 7.

Jose 

_______________________________________________
tcmtf mailing list
 <mailto:tcmtf@ietf.org> tcmtf@ietf.org
 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf