IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com> Thu, 07 August 2014 12:56 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.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 4520B1B2A2C for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 05:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2] 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 qk00120i0Ddo for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 05:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7D331B29B1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 05:56:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #91) id m1XFNF3-0000BjC; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 14:56:25 +0200
Message-Id: <m1XFNF3-0000BjC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <DE860EBC-171E-46E7-A3B6-5E8B79A453CC@cisco.com> <53DFEC6C.3010707@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGRUWxT5XiNxMi_S5VgYtGMLb_FVHXN-ZfGpcY=geix15g@mail.gmail.com> <53E06AC9.9010908@fud.no> <4F7D76F6-BD81-453B-94DC-A3C3DFF68505@delong.com> <8600C096-37D0-4651-92C1-BCFDBA674433@nominum.com> <CAD6AjGTBfyT-zNDJtBKCNtRxd=Hi07678Sr_-HgSGYbjAiF3Tg@mail.gmail.com> <C5281716-DC04-42E6-AC82-0D53E5DA0284@nominum.com> <53E1236A.605@fud.no> <m1XEkJJ-0000BuC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20140805195402.GO51793@Space.Net> <m1XElwg-0000BbC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <D00834AF.68B6C%Lee@asgard.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 06 Aug 2014 19:52:07 -0600 ." <D00834AF.68B6C%Lee@asgard.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 14:56:22 +0200
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/y7bwlmX4-BEisPKVPa1E3VkI6HI
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment
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: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 12:56:33 -0000

In your letter dated Wed, 06 Aug 2014 19:52:07 -0600 you wrote:
>If, indeed, we're talking specifically about Tore's SIIT document, it
>would be more useful if we could describe the cases where it does and does
>not make sense. Would you find it to be useful, then?

One of my replies to Tore already contains an example. Middle box implements
MSS clamping wrong. This breaks IPv4 for any service that has a path MTU of
less then the PPPoE MTU.

So this would break with the proposed SIIT solution.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email