IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 01 September 2014 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 0DB921A0697 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 11:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -115.169
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-115.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 BdJsbEVtdHpt for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 11:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B92611A0694 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 11:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1411; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409597770; x=1410807370; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=KIJQgcKrmb5sP2MCCteFltFgcosVMvbRkedvxp78OXQ=; b=P8KzP1IlIoWHDWzrxzZP75jXoazsZiXWEWf9yg/cYxzMaWo6ZQXh2Nmz 8lmMgA8LFp9cM+Z9vBF0fW/sVN1pFvrr42mumM5bPdj+VVGuIamTV6xbL ug8+nOK7+2oZLiIR8y1fjUTWvBBZS9puBnmoqUst4V3VraFKOAP0mJGCp c=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiEFACHABFStJV2P/2dsb2JhbABZgw1TVwTHf4dPAYEZFneEBAEBAwF5BQsCAQhGMiUCBA4FDogsCA25bAEXj00Hgy+BHQWRMYIGgUpehn2BW5NDg2FsgUiBBwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,444,1406592000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="74029731"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Sep 2014 18:56:09 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s81Iu8XR027338 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 1 Sep 2014 18:56:09 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.15]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 13:56:08 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] new draft: draft-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem
Thread-Index: AQHPxhZjjYSa+m6Hk0O0iy/DA4fRwg==
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 18:56:08 +0000
Message-ID: <301104B4-78F7-4B55-86EB-0712FFB7D4DD@cisco.com>
References: <201408251147.s7PBl2b6010099@irp-lnx1.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <201408251147.s7PBl2b6010099@irp-lnx1.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.117]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_12354E6C-75B4-40E4-8182-CEFF82815DA7"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/tcEsravPfyxOWnxJBy3ob9_w80U
Cc: "draft-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem@tools.ietf.org" <draft-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem
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: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 18:56:11 -0000

On Aug 25, 2014, at 4:47 AM, fred@cisco.com wrote:

> A new draft has been posted, at http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem/. Please take a look at it and comment.

As noted, there’s a draft. We have, for the past week or so, had a discussion in the thread “PMTUD problem”.

Question for the masses: what do we want to do with this draft? At IETF 90, we discussed adopting an updated version as a working group draft. Do we want to do that? 

More importantly, what outcome do we want. Does it need to become an RFC as operational viewpoint or procedure? Do we want to make recommendations to tcpm, 6man, or someone else, and specifically what recommendations?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email