> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...@isc.org] > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 7:55 AM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: Owen DeLong; Jimmy Hess; nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: IPv6 day and tunnels > > > In message <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65D374A86CB@XCH-NW- > 01V.nw.nos.boeing > .com>, "Templin, Fred L" writes: > > A quick comment on probes. Making the tunnel ingress probe > > is tempting but fraught with difficulties; believe me, I > > have tried. So, having the tunnel ingress fragment when > > necessary in conjunction with the original source probing > > is the way forward, and we should advocate both approaches. > > > > RFC4821 specifies how the original source can probe with > > or without tunnels in the path. It does not have any RTT > > delays, because it starts small and then tries for larger > > sizes in parallel with getting the valuable data through > > without loss. > > It's useful for TCP but it is not a general solution. PTB should > not be being blocked and for some applications one should just force > minimum mtu use.
Any packetization layer that is capable of getting duplicate ACKs from the peer can do it. Plus, support for just TCP is all that is needed for the vast majority of end systems at the current time. Thanks - Fred fred.l.temp...@boeing.com > > Thanks - Fred > > fred.l.temp...@boeing.com > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
