Re: [tsvwg] Status of ECN encapsulation drafts (i.e., stuck)

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Joe,

On 15/03/2020 19:53, Joseph Touch wrote:
>
>> [BB] I should add that PLPMTUD and clamping the max packet size 
>> complement each other.
>
> Except that PLPMTUD works over authenticated or encrypted transport 
> headers and clamping does not.
>
> Clamping could be useful if the information were in an IP header that 
> could be ignored by routers that don’t care (e.g, by not slowing them 
> down, as IP options do).

[BB] I think I see what the terminology problem is here.

I was using the term MSS clamping from this measurement study by Gorry's 
group:
https://iain.learmonth.me/stuff/pubs/UsableMTU2018.pdf
but it uses the same term whether networks do the clamping or 
end-systems do. In my sentence that you've quoted, I was using it to 
mean the sender limiting the size of the IP payload to a lower value 
than could have actually traversed the path. Sorry for not making that 
clear.

Also, in case it wasn't clear, when I said clamping and PLPMTUD 
complement each other, I meant the sender initially clamping the payload 
size, then subsequently using PLPMTUD and removing its clamp to use a 
larger, more efficient packet size instead.



Bob

>
> Joe

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/