Hi Ron,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:18 AM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Cc: Zuniga, Juan Carlos; Templin, Fred L; 
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
> 
> Hi Fred,
> 
>      Inline.....
> 
>                Ron
> 
> 
> > Hi Juan Carlos,
> >
> > Final passage of Section 3.1 says:
> >
> >    ?However, in an alternative configuration, the GRE ingress MAY:
> >
> >    o  discard the IPv6 packet
> >
> >    o  send an ICMPv6 Packet Too Big (PTB) [RFC4443] message to the IPv6
> >       packet source.  The MTU field in the ICMPv6 PTB message is set to
> >       the GMTU.?
> >
> > This means that there may be circumstances when the GRE ingress sends a
> > PTB reporting a size less than 1280. According to RFC2460, Section 5, the
> > standard behavior for a host that receives such a PTB is:
> >
> >    ?In that case, the IPv6 node
> >   is not required to reduce the size of subsequent packets to less than
> >    1280, but must include a Fragment header in those packets?
> >
> > So, hosts that obey RFC2460 Section 5 will see a perpetual black hole if the
> > GMTU is smaller than 1280 which is probably not what we want.
> 
> 
> [RPB]
> All true. This is why the WG decided to make this the alternative behavior 
> and not the default behavior.

Behavior that is broken is still broken regardless of whether it is alternative
or default.

> > ?draft-templin-6man-linkadapt? attempts to provide guidance to hosts on
> > how to react to PTB messages that report a small size. But, as of right now,
> > RFC2460 Section 5 is the normative behavior.
> [RPB]
> 
> Absolutely correct. The procedures described in Section 5 or RFC 246 are 
> normative.
> 
> I don't how this impacts the WG's LC decision regarding the current draft.

Broken behavior should not be specified, whether alternative or default.

Thanks - Fred
[email protected]

>                                                                              
> Ron
> 
> >
> > Thanks ? Fred
> > [email protected]
> >
> 

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Reply via email to