Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem WGLC

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Sun, 07 June 2015 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C4A1ACD21 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jun 2015 12:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 ZEyk3e7_bgmg for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jun 2015 12:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B73181ACD1D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Jun 2015 12:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mb-aye.local ([IPv6:2601:9:3402:7bb1:50ab:1f6e:8382:85ed]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t57J2g1A030178 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 7 Jun 2015 19:02:43 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, v6ops@ietf.org
References: <201505311800.t4VI02Cf026378@irp-lnx1.cisco.com> <556B9D1D.802@gmail.com>
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Message-ID: <55749551.4080801@bogus.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 12:02:41 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <556B9D1D.802@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="oe458eOUXiKkLuW3viLhGRholo6MDJXB1"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/3n313HVJ2ayQre9ws5BMtHx5-pM>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem WGLC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 07 Jun 2015 19:02:47 -0000

On 5/31/15 4:45 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Generally I think this is useful and almost ready.
> 
>> 3.1.  Alternatives
>>
>>    As an alternative, it may be appropriate to lower the TCP MSS to 1220
>>    in order to accommodate 1280 byte MTU.  We consider this undesirable
>>    as hosts may not be able to independently set TCP MSS by address-
>>    family thereby impacting IPv4, or alternatively that it relies on a
>>    middle-box to clamp the MSS independently from the end-systems.
> 
> The "that" in the second sentence doesn't parse. I don't understand
> what the draft is trying to say about MSS clamping.

Is this better?

or alternatively that middle-boxes need to be employed to clamp the MSS
independently from the end-systems.

> Also, shouldn't we say "undesirable but possibly necessary in some
> cases"? A server at the mercy of an ISP might *need* to apply MSS clamping.

since we are dealing with alternative mitigations we are justifying why
we don't like them, I thin they can be employed.

> Nit:
> 
> It's confusing to have these two sections with identical titles:
> 
>> 3.1.  Alternatives
>> 3.2.1.  Alternatives
> 
> Maybe 3.1 should be "MSS-based Alternatives"
> and 3.2.1 "Distributed Proxy Alternatives"

nice.

thanks

>    Brian
> On 01/06/2015 06:00, fred@cisco.com wrote:
>> This is to initiate a two week working group last call of
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem.  
>> Please read it now. If you find nits (spelling errors, minor suggested
>> wording changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you find greater
>> issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding additional
>> issues that need to be addressed, please post your comments to the
>> list.
>>
>> We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the
>> document as well as its content. If you have read the document and
>> believe it to be of operational utility, that is also an important
>> comment to make.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>