Hi, Lars, On 02/02/2017 06:37 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote: > 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? I think that RFC4821 should be recommended, at least for dealing with ICMP blackholes (i.e., use ICMP if you can, but be able to deal with scenarios in which you don't receive them). > 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? Agreed... although in this case this would be more of an app-layer implementation than one at the transport layer? Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492