On 7/1/2015 1:38 PM, Saumya Dikshit (sadikshi) wrote: > Hi Joe > > As far as I know, PLMTUD provides an extension to PMTUD and does not > deprecates the legacy.
There's not much to deprecate, per se. PLMTUD is certainly preferred. > ICMP can be one of the potential upper-layer protocols which can be used > for PLMTUD as well. It can be, but it's not needed at all. > Even though PLMTUD is ICMP agnostic, ICMP PTB¹s can be leveraged in > determining probe success/failures, > and also detecting ICMP black hole to further refine the probe. You cannot detect an ICMP black hole. You *infer* that event from a set of conditions, and that set can have several causes. > Ensuring that icmp PTB generated from the underlay is percolated to end > point device > should only aid PLMTUD and reduce the scope of icmp black-holing. ICMP PTBs should be received from L2 only when L2 cannot transit a message, i.e., when it cannot fragment and reassemble it. It should NOT be the result of L2 preferring a native size. I.e., the basis of Sec 3.1.1 is false. A packet that is fragmented and reassembled at the encapsulation layer (L2, to the E2E L3) is NOT "too big", and should never generate an ICMP error anyway. Joe > Thanks > Saumya. > > On 7/2/15, 1:24 AM, "Joe Touch" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On 7/1/2015 12:09 PM, Saumya Dikshit (sadikshi) wrote: >>> <Saumya> This solution can be viewed as an enabler for PLMTUD if >>> required >>> on any end-point >>> device connected to vxlan network and not the Vxlan gateways themselves. >> >> PLMTUD does not use ICMPs. It relies on positive feedback from the data >> plane, rather than negative feedback from the control plane. >> >> Joe > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
