IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Geoff/queue-closed: 56%

Xipengxiao <xipengxiao@huawei.com> Wed, 17 April 2024 10:13 UTC

Return-Path: <xipengxiao@huawei.com>
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 43141C14F696 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 03:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pdq-TmKJUDkl for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 03:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DB1CC14F60A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 03:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.216]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4VKGs56gt1z684m2; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 18:11:21 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml500003.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.28]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BD64140A46; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 18:13:21 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml500004.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.22) by frapeml500003.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:13:21 +0200
Received: from frapeml500004.china.huawei.com ([7.182.85.22]) by frapeml500004.china.huawei.com ([7.182.85.22]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.035; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:13:21 +0200
From: Xipengxiao <xipengxiao@huawei.com>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
CC: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Geoff/queue-closed: 56%
Thread-Index: AQHaen8TvndkX0U9oUylmMlF4nbIQLFACzqAgCxb0oA=
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:13:21 +0000
Message-ID: <5a4d382100604730bd31c45ba196d62a@huawei.com>
References: <ZfplwNJGdpl05bZO@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <EF78559D-7879-4C0D-A47B-08AB279FD40B@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <EF78559D-7879-4C0D-A47B-08AB279FD40B@isc.org>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.221.76.36]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/mWkTgQGJNXXWJHC66BnEjun8Uww>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Geoff/queue-closed: 56%
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:13:29 -0000

We should document IPv6 packet loss issues, identify causes, and publish drafts to address the issues.  Now that average IPv6 RTT is lower than IPv4 RTT (according to APNIC stats), if we can bring IPv6 PLR (packet loss rate) comparable to IPv4 PLR, then we can declare IPv6 provides better performance than IPv4.  That can become a universal reason to persuade people to migrate to IPv6.  Currently we can only claim that IPv6 has more addresses than IPv4.  For many organizations, this is not sufficient to justify a migration.

XiPeng  

-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Mark Andrews
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 6:36 AM
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Geoff/queue-closed: 56%

There is also PMTUD failures which is why IPV6_USE_MIN_MTU was designed to avoid triggering PMTUD.
Also setting MSS to 1280-headers when making a TCP connection that is expected to be short lived helps.  Anycast and PMTUD doesn’t work (well).  The only reason TCP appears to work is routers rewriting MSS when going from larger to smaller link MTUs.  Additionally there is zero pressure to fix brokenness why IPv4 co-exists.  DNS timeouts are small and happy eyeballs has always been part of how DNS servers work.  They wait sub seconds before moving onto a different address. IPv6 mostly is exposing broken configurations and they get fixed. 

> On 20 Mar 2024, at 15:27, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> 
> Has anyone tried to at least to try to determine the causes of the 56% fragmentation failures ?
> Aka: do we know that there are not single relevant causes that actually could be addressed ?
> 
> I fail to belive upfront that there are 10,000 individual issues, none 
> happening in more than 0.0056% of the instances.
> 
> Cheers
>    Toerless
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email