Lars, > On Feb 4, 2017, at 10:40 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Lars, > >>> My apologies: my comments were probably misleading. Certainly, this >>> document is simply RFC1981 to Std, and hence recommending RFC4821 would >>> be kind of ou of scope, here. >>> >>> That say, one might wonder to what extent, and for the general Internet, >>> RFC1981 can be considered succesful (given the filtering of ICMP >>> messages). -- i.e., at this point in time you wouldn't rely on RFC1981 >>> (icmp-based pmtud) for path-mtu discovery. >> >> What Fernando said: I'm certainly not opposed to lifting this to Standard, >> but it is painting an incorrect picture - PLPMTUD is de facto mandatory >> these days, and has been for years. > > While I'm all in favour of PLMTUD. It doesn't seem like a complete solution. > PMTUD on the other hand supports all protocols on top of IP. > > Looking just at our specifications, we cannot state that PLMTUD can replace > PMTUD. Take RFC2473 (IPv6 tunnelling) for example.
In addition to what Ole says here, I don’t think rfc1981bis is the right place to describe this. 6MAN is working on an update to IPv6 Node Requirements ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clw-rfc6434-bis-00 ). I think is a better place to describe the relationship between PMTUD and PLMTUD, where they work and don’t, and what the current recommendations are. I hope you will contribute to that work. Thanks, Bob
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
