Sheng Jiang via Datatracker wrote on 09/02/2022 06:29:
However, personally, I still not fully understand why this document are
intending for "experimental" and what would be the experiment range. It seems
for me this mechanism are good enough to be a proposed standard to persuade
people use it widely.
The draft proposes to add bottom-of-the-stack functionality to a 25yo
protocol, via a mechanism which is known to cause substantial packet
loss on production networks (see rfc7872).
The reliability of the proposed mechanism was brought up several times
during discussion at WG level, e.g.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/QrfdW0omcigRdPy2VECa_82oAEY/
The difficulty with MTU negotiation is that getting the MTU wrong will
cause packet blackholing.
In other words, the draft specifies a protocol enhancement whose stated
aims imply increased reliability, which depends on a mechanism which is
known to be highly unreliable in practice, and where misconfiguration
can cause serious reliability issues.
This is not P-S territory.
Separate to this, there is no running code that I'm aware of. There are
certainly no implementation reports.
There is no discussion in the draft of HBH reliability. It would be
appropriate if the ID quoted some of the EH reliability reports due to
operational concerns.
Nick
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
