IETF Logo Mail Archive

[v6ops] Link layer lossage [DHCPv6/SLAAC Make Hosts Confusing-//RE: new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem]

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 29 October 2013 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D135F11E81DF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.455
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.144, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q5NY+v9gzr-I for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22f.google.com (mail-pa0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B4F411E81E6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id lf10so613186pab.34 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=l6+eIcblnYl0D2Q/0jVIb6zz+BGhhlQiTZgzBbvswqA=; b=Q4Su/xzlHZeDay36Pp9d50ot1z1NMHSbwpONvu6FdxqbesFhkNfx1yCZFmtne1ZI3m nnjAPxSf5hb6Aj8nHqbza4d0kqvkfr+SR8STcc5bLxvs0rR8u1Ow1YvZL1X0K5W8lOfb eGKZdFWZN2gOJ2cpcjRvkliYWQl6pZvSSOjGFZPWVna28Nzi0NOXsvli+YsPOOYiY5le JG8HV/urDtYNCzX67f/wTFz2qvandV4PFy/bKAbow471AF/Cn77PIZUbDPihehePw3h9 GJjWjBY4QSwo4lWuk3eMAi1J0EcvHj7zig65FAURW9DV9gq6h9mLAhpH85owTPYEjH0P mz1w==
X-Received: by 10.68.180.131 with SMTP id do3mr1760444pbc.34.1383082079500; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.216.38.108] ([130.216.38.108]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qn1sm36954142pbc.34.2013.10.29.14.27.56 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <52702860.9090503@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:28:00 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
References: <CE8E8EC3.59F3A%victor@jvknet.com> <06601039-CAFD-49B0-918B-A8ACD51B978D@fugue.com> <alpine.OSX.2.00.1310281905440.11422@ayourtch-mac> <CAKD1Yr0qLd7syFizEUMa6DM2a2LY6Rv5GSFyoQAs4Pir6gcNkA@mail.gmail.com> <1383036443.56704.YahooMailNeo@web142501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1383036443.56704.YahooMailNeo@web142501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, "Ole Troan (otroan)" <otroan@cisco.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, "draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem@tools.ietf.org" <draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [v6ops] Link layer lossage [DHCPv6/SLAAC Make Hosts Confusing-//RE: new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:28:07 -0000

On 29/10/2013 21:47, Mark ZZZ Smith wrote:

> If the packet loss is too high, then link-layer designers are advised to use link-layer reliability mechanisms, as per advised in RFC3819.

That may in fact be exactly the wrong advice. At least, the results
I've seen on Coded TCP suggest that retransmission managed by the link
layer can do more harm than good, compared to a smart transport layer
designed for uncongested lossy paths.

(Conventional TCP is a different matter, which is why RFC 3819
says what it says.)

  Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email