Joe: Could you just resubmit a version of the draft? We cannot reference in the draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-20.txt draft unless you have a non-expired draft. John Scudder and the author team added it as a recommendation, but I had them take it out since the draft was expired. IESG members do not like “expired” drafts as references. Here’s the current -20.txt without your draft reference. 12. Operational Considerations A potential operational difficulty arises when tunnels are used, if the size of packets entering the tunnel exceeds the maximum transmission unit (MTU) the tunnel is capable of supporting. This difficulty can be exacerbated by stacking multiple tunnels, since each stacked tunnel header further reduces the supportable MTU. This issue is long-standing and well-known. The tunnel signaling provided in this specification does nothing to address this issue, nor to aggravate it (except insofar as it may further increase the popularity of tunneling). It would be stronger if we can point to your draft or another TSV draft that explains the details. If you and the TSV-art directorate has changes to this section to deal with MTU, it would very helpful to receive this information this week. Cheers, Sue From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joseph Touch Hi, Sue, I have a couple of other drafts currently being wrapped up (UDP options, TCP control block sharing bis). The tunnels is next on my list and I hope to finalize a version that we can consider for WGLC by the end of the year. That doc (even the latest expired version) has the text we’ve recommended elsewhere, e.g., in the TCP core (793) and elsewhere. Joe On Nov 9, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Susan Hares <shares@xxxxxxxx> wrote: Joe and Brian: As the replacement shepherd for draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-19.txt, I am looking for the INT area statement on tunnels and MTU in tunnels. Your intarea draft seems to have expired without any replacement. Where is the latest set of comments on tunnels and MTU issue from INT area? Sue From: Joseph Touch [mailto:touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Sep 28, 2020, at 11:32 PM, Brian Trammell via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: First and foremost, I was surprised to find no reference to tunnel or MTU +1 This is discussed in detail, with some much more specific terminology, in draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels In particular, *path MTU* is different from the received MTU, etc. It’s important to get this correct (note the many examples of current standards that do not). Joe _______________________________________________ |
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
