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

[Vasilenko Eduard <[e-mail]>]

If User would lose connectivity
Because additional EH increased packet size
And packet would be dropped.
Then it is the problem of Carrier.

There are a lot of recommendation how to avoid drop that happen as a result of bigger MTU demands.

-----Original Message-----
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 27 июля 2020 г. 12:56
To: Vasilenko Eduard <[e-mail]>; IPv6 Operations <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - MTU

On 27/7/20 06:39, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
> It is more important to have the problem mentioned on the list, then the quality of the section itself.

I fail to understand what's the MTU problem you are referring to.  the Path-MTU being reduced as a consequence of the use of EHs? something else?


> 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

That seems to be unrelated with this particular document.  If anything, 
MTU issues are a problem to the folks at both endpoints of an application.

But this documents is concern with the operational challenges 
represented by EHs. i.e., why operators need to deal with them.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492