Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-jaeggli-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem-00.txt

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Wed, 04 June 2014 22:21 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 B80A51A0309 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 15:21:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, 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 8SWhkIyVSV0W for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 15:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [149.20.64.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C24841A0373 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 15:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89D1E3493BC; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 22:20:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EAA0160067; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 22:25:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c211-30-183-50.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.183.50]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 25F4E16004C; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 22:25:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC891767F80; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 08:19:35 +1000 (EST)
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <20140602072659.7433.89475.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <538E73EE.8050409@gmail.com> <538EA522.4060507@bogus.com> <538F8246.9000909@gmail.com> <538F944D.5080205@foobar.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 04 Jun 2014 22:49:01 +0100." <538F944D.5080205@foobar.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 08:19:35 +1000
Message-Id: <20140604221935.7DC891767F80@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/eW9I2B9EAVJndTHa2Y-LvNqslSg
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, draft-jaeggli-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-jaeggli-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem-00.txt
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: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 22:21:03 -0000

Setting IPV6_USE_MIN_MTU to 1 should be a effective fix at the
application layer for IPv6.  That said FreeBSD doesn't do the right
thing by taking IPV6_USE_MIN_MTU into consideration when performing
MSS negotiations.

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/173444

Mark

In message <538F944D.5080205@foobar.org>, Nick Hilliard writes:
> On 04/06/2014 21:32, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > My logic is the number of hash buckets doesn't matter - it's the number
> > of paths, because if there are N paths, ~1/N of the traffic will go
> > along each path regardless of the number of hash buckets.
> 
> on a matter of nits, the number of hash buckets matters greatly if it's too
> small, and there is lots of hardware deployed out on the internet which
> suffers from not enough hash buckets.
> 
> Nick
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org