Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem WGLC

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 07 June 2015 20:10 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 B2CBE1ACD8B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jun 2015 13:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 2V3DZCb3WiAy for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jun 2015 13:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x230.google.com (mail-pa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A42D1ACD8C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Jun 2015 13:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by payr10 with SMTP id r10so82006408pay.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 07 Jun 2015 13:10:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=9lAQSYcA7eN8bEWq0/VR/ljGp2mpzq77RJuZm+OSNl0=; b=pq1nLLXLt/evXCypMyD8scgruyvfUoGkE76BppXZQszErTUaYiqrCS6T2VK77Y9l/m UE8HdqlILsNyGLzZz5vsFduZ8Y3DJ1KInHffkG/c5l5LSoR5FhMpU0QcgDYTFOq5WrV3 XddCakbnwlC0PxWmX9R4DR+6Pmh3yAgjIEbh3vCSzhcOvQawclv/HctHa5oU7njfY5X5 4fOcBMTyksYZNhLKlZrJ0de60L19q6XOgLIhwoNEYMHgewf0Ceu6ekkH6aIiRmpxckKR nYmFexvPAUd9x+2+MtAAsVpdMcmLb8vQ2vQCZAjds5sAhlDeaiZzpYs10/E084W6wYBJ NOQg==
X-Received: by 10.66.249.168 with SMTP id yv8mr23933337pac.49.1433707852662; Sun, 07 Jun 2015 13:10:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:5614:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:5614:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id om4sm372384pdb.68.2015.06.07.13.10.49 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 07 Jun 2015 13:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5574A546.1030007@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 08:10:46 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
References: <201505311800.t4VI02Cf026378@irp-lnx1.cisco.com> <556B9D1D.802@gmail.com> <55749551.4080801@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <55749551.4080801@bogus.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/s3EUbiWEkCJhOaVDNiSHOGN7ZLw>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem WGLC
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: Sun, 07 Jun 2015 20:10:54 -0000

On 08/06/2015 07:02, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 5/31/15 4:45 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Generally I think this is useful and almost ready.
>>
>>> 3.1.  Alternatives
>>>
>>>    As an alternative, it may be appropriate to lower the TCP MSS to 1220
>>>    in order to accommodate 1280 byte MTU.  We consider this undesirable
>>>    as hosts may not be able to independently set TCP MSS by address-
>>>    family thereby impacting IPv4, or alternatively that it relies on a
>>>    middle-box to clamp the MSS independently from the end-systems.
>>
>> The "that" in the second sentence doesn't parse. I don't understand
>> what the draft is trying to say about MSS clamping.
> 
> Is this better?
> 
> or alternatively that middle-boxes need to be employed to clamp the MSS
> independently from the end-systems.

That's fine.

   Brian

> 
>> Also, shouldn't we say "undesirable but possibly necessary in some
>> cases"? A server at the mercy of an ISP might *need* to apply MSS clamping.
> 
> since we are dealing with alternative mitigations we are justifying why
> we don't like them, I thin they can be employed.
> 
>> Nit:
>>
>> It's confusing to have these two sections with identical titles:
>>
>>> 3.1.  Alternatives
>>> 3.2.1.  Alternatives
>>
>> Maybe 3.1 should be "MSS-based Alternatives"
>> and 3.2.1 "Distributed Proxy Alternatives"
> 
> nice.
> 
> thanks
> 
>>    Brian
>> On 01/06/2015 06:00, fred@cisco.com wrote:
>>> This is to initiate a two week working group last call of
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem.  
>>> Please read it now. If you find nits (spelling errors, minor suggested
>>> wording changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you find greater
>>> issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding additional
>>> issues that need to be addressed, please post your comments to the
>>> list.
>>>
>>> We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the
>>> document as well as its content. If you have read the document and
>>> believe it to be of operational utility, that is also an important
>>> comment to make.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
> 
>