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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 31 May 2015 23:45 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 A24001B2E8D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 May 2015 16:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 A0tKEZ_niuUO for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 May 2015 16:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x229.google.com (mail-pd0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 779AC1B2E8B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 May 2015 16:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pdbnf5 with SMTP id nf5so33069716pdb.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 May 2015 16:45:38 -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 :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=iNUluuHTcGiCJVctXuWZaoY4wESAjcaU7fvd2TrlJ0A=; b=FSwxjankeprx2foyYoSNAYuYt4Gu0sa01lAF0EcIRs/CZkx1ObVuKNdoLLiUCXCQsS diQ8uE7OQRuE08nArlENTnlGb2TiIT8+JliGGTOMS9FSvildxGjBZAcTkWgpm3404nzy Glz3o+ZtFSMxiT2L5QYLwYfaLPmA39BwHw2A59I4S0ddmYYuGrpp2BnoETossro7Yy+1 3ZCQs4BjH9sGqrxt+JUrrSvOOKEkXUJcs3fGmaeNUy17/m5QWF3F7DY8BCnSRJlDTf4R H64vEnYL7iO1ieqc4AmApdu/2X9vyFuS5+/w/cUQG8ey/uiNcJUb08/LJ/iuyKvBlL1r TgIA==
X-Received: by 10.70.54.103 with SMTP id i7mr35817079pdp.134.1433115938116; Sun, 31 May 2015 16:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:68be:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:68be:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fm3sm12289217pdb.28.2015.05.31.16.45.35 for <v6ops@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 31 May 2015 16:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <556B9D1D.802@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 11:45:33 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <201505311800.t4VI02Cf026378@irp-lnx1.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <201505311800.t4VI02Cf026378@irp-lnx1.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/IRLVgxf8BSSeEcG3GWjR4KzbwOo>
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, 31 May 2015 23:45:40 -0000

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.

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.

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"

   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
>