Hi Ron,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:38 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Cc: Zuniga, Juan Carlos; [email protected]; 
> [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Int-area] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
> 
> Fred,
> 
> Some (if not most) operators maintain networks in which all links have MTU 
> greater than or equal to 1500. In those networks, the very
> detection of a GMTU smaller than 1280 indicates brokenness. Those operators, 
> the alternative behavior may be preferable to the
> default.

The minimum IPv6 MTU is 1280 bytes; that is how much the link must deliver
no matter what. A GMTU smaller than 1280 does not indicate brokennesss;
it can naturally happen if 1) there is a link with a small MTU in the path, or
2) there are multiple tunnel nesting levels, or both.

As such, sustained dropping of packets less than 1280 is a no-no, and cannot
be specified in a document like this.

Thanks - Fred
[email protected]

>                                                                               
>             Ron
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:30 PM
> > To: Ronald Bonica; [email protected]; [email protected]
> > Cc: Zuniga, Juan Carlos; [email protected]; 
> > intarea-
> > [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [Int-area] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
> >
> > 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