15 nov. 2014 12:32, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> : > It is true that double translation has the problem that the DF bit is not > communicated through. This is a limitation of the MAP-T specification.
> I've asked the authors about this, and they did not deny that this > limitation exists, Good to know authors confirmed. (Note that denial would have been difficult. That’s just a simple technical analysis.) But did they confirm my complete point, namely that MAP-T breaks the ICMP-independent Path MTU Discovery of RFC4821? If they didn’t, the fact remains, is important, and is also easy to verify. > so your claim that the authors are trying to conceal it seems a bit > un-collegial. It seemed to you a bit un-collegial, but it certainly didn’t intend to be: - To explain why I didn’t insist at that time to document the PMTUD problem, I just said "I felt a strong preference of MAP-T authors for keeping it concealed, and I had to move to other activities." . - This is just the truth about what I felt then. - In any case, if anyone is crossed by what I said, I apologize for having told, in good faith but too frankly, what I had felt. > As I said, the working group did consider this issue, and it was not a > factor in the coin toss. This seems to suggest that someone viewed this issue had been "a factor in the coin toss". No one did AFAIK, and certainly not me. But this isn’t the point. Even in its experimental status, I do think MAP-T's specification should have included a warning that it is incompatible with Path MTU Discovery of RFC4821, and that MAP-E should be used if such compatibility is desired. Yet, IMHO, harm of this warning being absent remains limited enough to be acceptable as long as the status of MAP-T remains Experimental. Regards, RD _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
