On 04 Jun 2015, at 17:43, Joe Touch <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 6/4/2015 3:48 AM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) wrote: ... Does it make sense for the TAPS transports draft to add ICMP? ICMP is not a transport protocol. Sure. And I agree. But it has the potential to influence how the various transport protocols behave. That interaction might be nice to have described in the transports draft. The ways in which transport protocols either terminate or pass-through ICMP messages is part of the transport protocol abstract API. E.g., for UDP and TCP see RFC1122. UDP passes all ICMP messages to the app. No. Not unless the application specifically listens for it. Unfortunately how to do this varies from OS to OS: See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-martinsen-tram-stuntrace-01#appendix-A.2 for examples. Listening for port unreachable can be nice to avoid spamming a host or application that recently crashed. Detecting fragmentation or max MTU is also a nice feature especially VoIP applications sending video can utilise to optimise their packet sizes. TCP passes only dest unreachable types 0, 1, and 5, time exceeded and parameter problem. All others it interprets or ignores internally and it’s not clear it should pass up to the app. That is exactly that kind of information I would find useful in the transports draft. Any pitfalls with ICMP when doing SCTP? .-. Pål-Erik Joe
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
