Stewart,
> Maybe we could sort this out faster with a short phone call. Yes, we can certainly do that! > As I read the spec it says hunt for a new upper limit every 10 mins, won't > there be packet as it sends out oversized packets looking for a higher MTU? Yes. Best regards, Ole > On 14/02/2017 18:33, [email protected] wrote: >> Stewart, >> >>> *If* you care about packet loss, then your only option is to probe the >>> path with with >>> synthetic data that exactly mimics the live data, or not to probe at all >>> and live >>> with the 1280. As I said 1280 is pretty close to 1496 which is all most >>> networks >>> will give you in practice. >> Yes, but sending at 1280 does not work for IP tunnels. The whole purpose of >> the minimum MTU was to give space for tunnel headers (1500-1280). >> >>> When I think about the people asking for fast re-route to minimise packet >>> loss, it seems >>> very strange to deliberately induce loss to try to stretch the MTU by 15%. >> Please show the data that there is significant loss. The measurements I have >> found has not shown that. >> If not, then let's please leave that argument on the shelf. >> >> (And please don't read me wrong, I think we should get DNS fixed, that we >> should fix the IP tunnelling protocols, and that we should get IP >> fragmentation deprecated). >> >> But right here, right now. PMTUD is for many problems the only solution on >> the table. >> We as a community can choose not to elevate the standard of course, and that >> will of course not have any big consequence. >> Are you afraid that elevating 1981, will hinder people from working on new >> and better solutions? >> >> Best regards, >> Ole
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
