> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 11:13 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Fragmentation-related security issues
> 
> On 2012-01-05 02:57, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> > Earlier, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >> Atomic fragments > 1280 should not appear in the network.  
> >> Atomic fragments <= 1280 are a expected part of the IPv6 
> landscape.  
> >> For TCP they should be rare.  
> >> For UDP it depends on the protocol running on top of UDP.  
> >> PMTUD relying on PTB is just not reliable.
> > 
> > To the best of my understanding, the above is correct.
> 
> The last point is IMHO the most significant. As far as I'm
> concerned, PMTUD for IPv4 has *never* been reliable, and for
> many years I clamped the MTU on my laptop at 576 to avoid
> constant connectivity failures while on travel. That seems
> to have become unnecessary in recent years since 1500 became
> almost universal as the link MTU (but PMTUD is still unreliable).
> 
> I see no reason to expect that PMTUD will be more reliable for
> IPv6 than for IPv4.

I think a lot is now hinging on the assumption that
PMTUD for IPv6 works. Unlike the situation for IPv4,
I see no reason to expect that PMTUD for IPv6 will
be unreliable.

> 1280 is reasonably safe today only because
> 1500 link MTU is widespread.

On this point, I agree that 1280 fits within the current
day Internet cell size (1500) even if there are multiple
levels of encapsulation. But, I see no reason why IPv6
PMTUD can't be counted upon for larger than 1280.

Fred
[email protected]

> On 2012-01-05 05:19, Dan Wing wrote:
> 
> > We can clamp TCP MSS on our various translator devices.
> 
> However, this won't help with TCP implementations whose
> MSS negotiation is broken. I haven't seen that failure
> mode on translated paths, but I have seen it on 6to4 paths,
> where one end wanted to reduce the MSS and the other end
> was stuck on 1440.
> 
>     Brian
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email protected]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to