> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:pch-b6B5344D9@u- > 1.phicoh.com] On Behalf Of Philip Homburg > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 1:29 AM > To: Dan Wing > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: PMTU blackhole detection > > In your letter dated Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:45:45 -0700 you wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of > >> Philip Homburg > >> On the other hand, the difference between 1500 and 1280 is so small, > I > >> wonder if breaking things just because you want to send packets > >> at 1500 bytes makes a lot of sense. > >> > >> One other thing, if this makes the IPv6 experience worse than > industry > >> standard for IPv4, then maybe it is also not a good idea. > > > >This isn't quite "packets per second will increase by 16.2%", though, > >as of course not all packets are 'full'. But there will be a pps > >increase. > > Yes, but is avoiding that small increase worth the complexity that > things break whenever an ICMP doesn't get delivered?
No, not yet. But it is a problem worthy of getting fixed. We have slid backwards on the PMTUD problem with IPv6. We need to move the other direction (forwards). -d -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
