Gorry, either you did not read my concluding paragraph or you read it and are fully on board with it. It is good that we have list archives, which are a close second to RFCs in terms of being a permanent record. Thanks - Fred > -----Original Message----- > From: Gorry Fairhurst [mailto:gorry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2022 8:20 AM > To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@xxxxxxxxxx>; Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx>; IPv6 List <ipv6@xxxxxxxx>; Brian E > Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: last-call@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option@xxxxxxxx; Tom Herbert <tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option-12.txt> (IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option) to Experimental RFC > > EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments. > > > > On 07/02/2022 16:03, Templin (US), Fred L wrote: > > I will repeat what I said; getting this right the first time is trivial and ignoring it the > > first time ruins the opportunity to use it for bigger and better purposes for forever. > > > > Bob objects that there has been little uptake in jumbograms, but the correct > > statement is that there has been little uptake *until now* - IP Parcels will change > > all of that. And, not just for the local link, but over the entire path. > > An example: Source -> 4M -> 2M -> 512K -> 256K -> 1M -> 3M -> Destination. > > In that case, the MTU option had better report 256K. > > I will now briefly take up the subject of bull-throwing. I think many of the people > > we have seen in these discussions and elsewhere are very skilled in the art of > > throwing the bull. Some virtuous few others are genuine in their approach and > > want the best technical outcome. I would say to them be authentic; be genuine; > > be yourself, and do not succumb to the ways of the hardcore bull-throwers. > > > > Thanks - Fred > > I'm sorry but I also agree with Bob: I don't see that your proposal > relates to the IPv6 deployment scenario in the IETF-LC. At this time, we > haven't seen vendors with support for more than 16 KB frames (for > various reasons I'll let them explain), and despite some deployment in > DCs we have yet to see many operational Internet paths that allow more > than ~ 2 KB. > > I'll look forward with interest to seeing the level of support to deploy > 4MB MTUs (or whatever size you target) in INTAREA and how challenges > will be addressed, but I don't see this as a great reason for growing > the size of the IPv6 HBH PMTU option. > > Gorry -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
