Mikael,
Response inline......
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@swm.pp.se>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 5:20 AM
> To: int-area@ietf.org; Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>
> Subject: draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-01
>
>
> Hi,
>
> as promised in v6ops, I will suggest text. The current -01 text is:
>
> 7.2. For Network Operators
>
> As per RFC 4890, network operators MUST NOT filter ICMPv6 PTB
> messages unless they are known to be forged or otherwise
> illegitimate. As stated in Section 4.5, filtering ICMPv6 PTB packets
> causes PMTUD to fail. Many upper-layer protocols rely on PMTUD.
>
> So perhaps text along these lines:
>
> --
> As per RFC 4890, network operators MUST NOT filter ICMPv6 PTB messages
> unless they are known to be forged or otherwise illegitimate. As stated in
> Section 4.5, filtering ICMPv6 PTB packets causes PMTUD to fail. Operators
> MUST ensure proper PMTUD operation in their network, including making
> sure the network generates PTB packets when dropping packets too large
> compared to outgoing interface MTU.
>
> Many upper-layer protocols rely on PMTUD.
Your text will be in the next version of the draft.
> --
>
> I have also encountered lots of people who think that as long as they do MSS
> capping, they don't have to worry about anything. Should we include text on
> their behalf?
I think that they are OK, at least in IPv6 networks. Do I have that wrong?
>
> Another thing, I would like to see text somewhere (perhaps 7.1) that states
> that protocols/applications should do PLMTUD. I would like to see TCP having
> this default on in all operating systems.
While I would agree with the recommendation, I might be overstepping my charter
if I made it. Isn't that a call for the transport area to make?
Ron
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
