IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - MTU

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Mon, 27 July 2020 10:24 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 52DE73A1850; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 03:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 plmvRPjbsizB; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 03:24:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15C273A184D; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 03:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (admin.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 06RAOS5N058895 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 27 Jul 2020 11:24:29 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host admin.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8] claimed to be crumpet.local
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops@ietf.org" <draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops@ietf.org>
References: <678838bf6f0549689268a571498332d1@huawei.com> <9e9bf619-28fe-7238-6d62-53d5a814935a@si6networks.com> <446331e9ebc84c88a9197a27b169710e@huawei.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <d23f7256-29ef-0fb2-6d55-c38001c2e0d5@foobar.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 11:24:27 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.24
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <446331e9ebc84c88a9197a27b169710e@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/IUzjLkLjTUcuGdH-9y09OukDi0E>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - MTU
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:24:44 -0000

Eduard

MTUs don't change the principal that EHs can be operationally 
troublesome, although there may be a minor impact in terms of scope. 
It's probably a good idea to touch on the subject in the draft, but I 
don't think it needs much more than a mention.

Nick


Vasilenko Eduard wrote on 27/07/2020 10:39:
> Hi Fernando,
> It is more important to have the problem mentioned on the list, then the quality of the section itself.
> It is definitely a problem if one would like to activate any EH - potential admin should be warned.
> What could be inside:
> - small discussion that fragmentation in the middle of IPv6 path is not possible
> - some IPCMPv6 messages should not be filtered
> - MTU is better to change on networking links
> In reality, I do not believe that it is difficult to compile this section, because so many materials on the IETF for this subject.
> IMHO: it is very important to have this warning on the list.
> 
> If you like, I could try to write this small section. Just this week is a little busy for me.
> Eduard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fgont@si6networks.com]
> Sent: 27 июля 2020 г. 12:18
> To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>; IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - MTU
> 
> Hello, Edward,
> 
> On 27/7/20 05:46, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
>> Hi Fernando,
>> It is possible to search "MTU" in your draft. But I am surprised anyway how small attention (to this problem) is in your draft.
>> IMHO: MTU deserves to be section 5.4
> 
> Could you please clarify what's the discussion you expect to see about the MTU?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Cheers,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email