IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Sat, 22 October 2011 04:51 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 967C41F0C60 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.706
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.706 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.270, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 4lvsfsAXPIWB for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5C141F0C5A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.12]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p9M4pJIH032158 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:51:19 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1319259079; bh=082VCsHxqZxkr/KIFGaVtj0w+K8=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=AcTJHPohIwmEo0Vm7oX++JuNJ4Q2BG4YPgEwyh9tWZQiEQsIHS66X0u10ussO0hzi lGhr9mzUhpyrzyd5GVIEQ==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=dkim-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date: message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=KFs/mKPdXpx2dUfPm0rMTRO7Hi6bPMz86isxfmgpqkew3ut2BmpJ25gyUt8aH5C8Y yuiZSMnScmwR4UTQl2BhQ==
Received: from vcbfk14 (vcbfk14.prod.google.com [10.220.204.14]) by hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p9M4ou6D003412 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:51:18 -0700
Received: by vcbfk14 with SMTP id fk14so6425941vcb.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; bh=HoQjDC9uW9x0ysI9yXdvYjdn9GVC25iBqub+CCatu+0=; b=DL5QkzEkSY40KsZayUxXyAn3Nxl6BJGB3K1H2utSA3AD3aWzUnQTHBOdT545PyoW4i NuHX3geccL1HwI/5n44Q==
Received: by 10.150.206.6 with SMTP id d6mr15698936ybg.60.1319259078258; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.206.6 with SMTP id d6mr15698926ybg.60.1319259078109; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.96.7 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <043c01cc8f50$75b69f40$6123ddc0$@com>
References: <4E974F1A.2030008@forthnetgroup.gr> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C3030A4156@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C303130390@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <4E98CCB2.2050100@forthnetgroup.gr> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C3031303D8@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <4E994515.6020204@forthnetgroup.gr> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C303130B54@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C303130C12@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <4E9E8706.6050006@forthnetgroup.gr> <39D5D616-6E56-46B1-B773-437184567E60@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr3SRRjk4fjg1WkUZSQ6rRT2+dY5p-wjtEiA5SFvx4kqGA@mail.gmail.com> <0F5D8352-7A20-46BF-867B-DBBF36CF0B01@apple.com> <4EA04F5F.1010809@unfix.org> <043c01cc8f50$75b69f40$6123ddc0$@com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:50:58 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr15nVtnGbV9oZ05Y9n=G97uvzVe2GXmM1gD4i7KnR1sBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd404d0b7ac2804afdbf020"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
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: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 04:51:21 -0000

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 02:48, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:

> Indicating different MTUs to the host could go a long way towards
> solving the issue that James brought up -- we need a clean way to
> indicate to the host which routes or paths have small MTUs, so
> that communications within a network can use a large MTU.


Agreed. We should to make MTU a per-path, not per-link, attribute. After
all, the host already knows from layer 2 hints what the local link MTU is.
The good news is that we wouldn't need to change any packet formats to do
that, we could simply make it so that the MTU in the RA would apply to the
default route.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email