> -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 9:55 AM > To: Templin, Fred L; Ronald Bonica; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6-07.txt > > > > On 4/23/2015 9:27 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > ... > >> Probe success tells you only that. Probe loss tells you only that. > >> > >> IP allows loss, so strictly there's no reason to shut a tunnel down due > >> to loss. Burst lost or patterns of loss might be undesirable, but > >> they're allowed by IP. > >> > >> However, it might be useful to note that probe success isn't the only > >> issue; that probe loss over 1% might be considered problematic (using > >> the typical performance needed for 'reasonable' TCP progress). > > > > That is fine, but the troubling condition is when the tunnel ingress > > successfully probes for 1280 (or 1500) but that same probe would > > have failed if it travelled along a different path. > > I repeat: Probe success tells you only that. Probe loss tells you only that. > > What "would have" happened is irrelevant.
Then, let me also repeat that "about all you can tell from probing is whether the egress is alive - probing can't be relied on to tell you anything about the path(s)" Again, this does not make me happy because I have been trying to figure out for years how to make tunnels probe the MTU. The only alternative I know of is to fragment when necessary per what I said a couple of messages back. Thanks - Fred [email protected] > Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
