Re: [v6ops] PMTUD issue discussion

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Fri, 05 September 2014 00:52 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.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 05C4A1A02E0 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 17:52:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.568
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] 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 shpQqGTF384V for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 17:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 597E61A02F0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 17:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mb-aye.local (c-67-188-0-113.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.188.0.113]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s850qeof040721 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 5 Sep 2014 00:52:40 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <54090953.7010709@bogus.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 17:52:35 -0700
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:32.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/32.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <0D370E74-688B-4EB3-A691-309A03AF20BA@cisco.com> <53FBA174.2040302@isi.edu> <53FBA6E1.90905@bogus.com> <CAPi140PMeM9omtm11+NHa2ywUfof_tE7HknKExtoEb32mm7L_w@mail.gmail.com> <71D0D5E8-80E9-430B-8ED4-16C1F99082CC@cisco.com> <54020ECC.4000000@globis.net> <CAEmG1=redpYUnv9R-uf+cJ4e+iPCf6zMHzVxeKNMGjcC=BjR+Q@mail.gmail.com> <5402C26A.8060304@globis.net> <540626F6.1020103@scea.com> <28F170C9-1E44-42CB-B11A-4A7173511D22@puck.nether.net> <5408F5DB.6000906@bogus.com> <5408FD25.4000505@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5408FD25.4000505@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vw6dOCg1F2SHDu7PPDbbiA9he8TjChJCt"
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Fri, 05 Sep 2014 00:52:40 +0000 (UTC)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/iXrrSgFSYieIWoDUHVWa4dgOYAU
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, Tom Perrine <tperrine@scea.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] PMTUD issue discussion
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: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 00:52:45 -0000

On 9/4/14 5:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 05/09/2014 11:29, joel jaeggli wrote:
>> On 9/4/14 3:09 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>>> We configure customer links at 1500 (default), 4470 and 9000.
>>
>> in the cases that I experienced I have my mss set to 1440. So clients
>> with a higher MTU than 1500 are no so much of an issue. almost all of
>> the cases that I have have examined were due to encapsulation.
> 
> Yes, and MSS negotiation down to 1220 doesn't always work, so
> with 1280 tunnels still around, even 1440 can cause failures.

sure that's kinda I find it necessary make sure the packet makes it when
i get one. I suspect even 1220 can hose you in some corner case... I'd
rather have my extra 220 bytes of pdu in any event.

>    Brian
> 
>>
>>> - Jared
>>>
>>>> On Sep 2, 2014, at 4:22 PM, Tom Perrine <tperrine@scea.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What MTUs are actually (commonly) seen in the wild?
>>>>
>>>> I can only think of less than a dozen that I would expect to see, assuming that the actual MTU is based solely on the underlying network technology.
>>>>
>>>> Is planning and assuming that we'll see each and every possible MTU actually necessary?
>>>>
>>>> I agree that we wouldn't want to artificially limit MTUs to only a few common ones, I mean look how /64s became embedded in silicon...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> v6ops mailing list
>>>> v6ops@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> v6ops mailing list
>>> v6ops@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>