Hi, Fred, This is a separate issue with RFC4821, though.
My point for 1981bis is that it needs to be more clear that ICMP blocking renders this technique ineffective for the most part. I'm not saying that PLPMTUD is perfect or the only alternative, but this doc should be more clear about its own viability. Joe On 2/7/2017 11:45 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > Hi Joe, > > In my understanding, RFC4821 does not adequately address scenarios where the > probe packets may (for legitimate reasons) take a different path than the data > packets, e.g., when Equal-Cost Multi Path (ECMP) is present. This is not only > a > consideration for tunnels, but also for path MTU sharing between transport > layer > sessions where an MTU learned by a first session is shared with a second > session > bound for the same destination. In that case, the probes of the first session > may > take a different path than the data packets of the second session, and a black > hole is possible. > > Thanks - Fred > [email protected] > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: tsv-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe Touch >> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 10:26 AM >> To: [email protected]; Eggert, Lars <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 6man WG <[email protected]>; >> [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04.txt> (Path MTU >> Discovery for IP version 6) to Internet Standard >> >> >> >> On 2/4/2017 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. >> If by "supports" you mean "doesn't work", then yes. That's why we now >> have PLPMTUD. >> >>> Looking just at our specifications, we cannot state that PLMTUD can replace >>> PMTUD. Take RFC2473 (IPv6 tunnelling) for example. >> See draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels, esp. v03 Section 5.5.2 >> >> (yes, that doc has expired while we're preparing the 04 update, which >> should be issued shortly) >> >> Joe >> >
