Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04.txt> (Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6) to Internet Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

the last paragraph of the introduction reads:

   An extension to Path MTU Discovery defined in this document can be
   found in [RFC4821].  It defines a method for Packetization Layer Path
   MTU Discovery (PLPMTUD) designed for use over paths where delivery of
   ICMP messages to a host is not assured.

Given that ICMP delivery cannot be assured over the vast majority of paths in the current Internet, should this document make a recommendation to implement RFC4821?

Also, even if ICMP delivery is assured, there are additional complications for UDP, which has been seeing a lot of interest both as a tunneling encapsulation and for applications (e.g., QUIC). Many platforms do not provide UDP-sending applications any information about arriving ICMP messages that were triggered by their transmissions. So even if the path delivers ICMP, the OS makes ICMP-based PMTUD for UDP often impossible. Another reason to recommend 4821?

Lars

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]