[tsvwg] DPLPMTU (was RE: design assumptions - draft-ietf-udp-options - trying to see the bigger picture)
<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 19 July 2019 05:32 UTC
Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C3B312010C for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 22:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 uEJ78m3iDSeA for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 22:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.66.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69C4E120043 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 22:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar06.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.8]) by opfedar24.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45qfls4Ttnz5vff; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 07:32:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.67]) by opfedar06.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45qflX07t5z3wc8; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 07:32:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 07:32:23 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
CC: TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: DPLPMTU (was RE: [tsvwg] design assumptions - draft-ietf-udp-options - trying to see the bigger picture)
Thread-Index: AdU981WvutFrzTdkTaqsptPNWwGsGw==
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 05:32:23 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302FA84143@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.247]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/_1r27GncTxKVOw94KOrmuoAItvc>
Subject: [tsvwg] DPLPMTU (was RE: design assumptions - draft-ietf-udp-options - trying to see the bigger picture)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 05:32:45 -0000
Hi Mike, Gorry, all, (Focusing on the DPLPMTU part) How the pieces are structured/described in the two documents is broken. udp-options has a normative dependency on DPLPMTU I-D to specify how this would work, but that document does not elaborate on the processing of UDP options. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : tsvwg [mailto:tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Gorry Fairhurst > Envoyé : jeudi 18 juillet 2019 18:16 > À : C. M. Heard > Cc : TSVWG > Objet : Re: [tsvwg] design assumptions - draft-ietf-udp-options - trying > to see the bigger picture > > On 18/07/2019, 16:46, C. M. Heard wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 3:39 AM Gorry Fairhurst wrote: > > > > > > For DPLPMTU (#6) the complexity is in another spec (which seems > correct > > > to me). I'd be interested whether a separate spec of Frag is also one > > > way to ensure we get experience with the core spec, and then consider > > > how to design Frag (#5, #8). > > > > For DPLPMTU the complexity is in another spec, but the tools that UDP > > options provide for it are in the base spec. Those tools are: > > > > - padding for probe packets > > - request option > > - response option > > > > The request and response options are pretty straightforward, but the > > details of how padding will be accommodated may well depend on what > > packet format we converge to for providing other things, especially > > FRAG. > DPLPMTUD works best with *just* padding packets (i.e. that carry no > payloads or fragments). It's just so much easier to run the algorithm.
- [tsvwg] DPLPMTU (was RE: design assumptions - dra… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [tsvwg] DPLPMTU (was RE: design assumptions -… Gorry Fairhurst