Re: [v6ops] PMTUD issue discussion

Hi, all,

Speaking from TCPM-land, I would observe the following:

- PMTUD already has many known problems, which is why PLMTUD is 
recommended instead

- the issue here appears to be a device that routes TCP and UDP packets 
based on a hash, but does not apply that hash to the ICMP messages
	that's clearly an oversight of those devices.
	ICMP feedback is a known part of the Internet architecture,
	and any device that demultiplexes packets based on transport
	info needs to similarly process ICMP messages

	that goes for NATs, load balancers, or anything else.

I'm not sure what would be added other than to say "we found this 
problem here too". It's a bug that ought to be fixed, but endpoints that 
intend to be robust already know not to rely on ICMP.

Joe

On 8/25/2014 10:20 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem
>   "Close encounters of the ICMP type 2 kind (near misses with ICMPv6
>   PTB)", Matt Byerly, Matt Hite, Joel Jaeggli, 2014-08-24,
>
> As requested at IETF 90, Joel has edited and reposted his draft. There are two questions before the house:
>   - do we want to make this a working group draft?
>   - what do we want to do next?
>
> Note that, by charter, what we are not permitted to do is change implementations or protocols; we are allowed to define operational procedure. That said, we *can* make recommendations to other working groups, asking them to change something.
>
> So, for example, we might ask 6man to do something specific, or we might ask tcpm to do something specific. Something specific that we might ask tcpm to do would be to get operational experience with RFC 4821 and commit it back to open source, for example.
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>