Hemant,
I do not understand your answer to question 1. How would the purpose of a user
sending ICMPv6 echo requests bear on system behavior? Also, unless the
operating system has a facility to pass the PMTU size to the application, e.g.,
the MMS_S value mentioned in RFC 1981, AND the applicati
Thomas,
We would be happy to see any results you may have concerning application
behavior during PMTUD.
Best Regards,
Jeffrey Dunn
Info Systems Eng., Lead
MITRE Corporation.
(301) 448-6965 (mobile)
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Peterson [mailto:thom...@iol.unh.edu]
Sent: Wedne
> The following questions occurred to us:
> 1. Should the hosts re-transmit the ICMPv6 echo request(s) in
fragments?
If the ICMPv6 echo reqs were being used for PMTUD, the answer should be
a No. The host just received an Indication of Too Big that also said
the PMTU is 1280, so the host should
Pekka,
On 2009-01-22 08:35, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Christian Huitema wrote:
>>> What did you have in mind? Is there a reason to advance it?
>>
>> I am getting enquiries along the lines of "OK, this was a proposed
>> standard 5 years ago, it has not progressed, does it mean it
RFC 4291 cites it (includes it by reference) but not as a normative
reference, but also restates the action taken by RFC 3879. Assuming RFC
4291 progresses along the standards track making the deprecation of
Site-local a "standard" is there any need to also promote 3879? Also,
since 4291 obs
Hi Jeffrey,
This is Thomas Peterson from the InterOperability Laboratory at UNH.
We have done extensive testing in this area and would be happy to work
with you off line to examine this scenario.
If you would like we can even set up your test topology in our lab.
Thanks,
Tom
On Jan 21, 200
Rémi,
I agree with you assertions concerning "ping" versus TCP; however, I am looking
for some concrete documentation or experiences.
Best Regards,
Jeffrey Dunn
Info Systems Eng., Lead
MITRE Corporation.
(301) 448-6965 (mobile)
-Original Message-
From: Rémi Denis-Courmont [mailto
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Christian Huitema wrote:
What did you have in mind? Is there a reason to advance it?
I am getting enquiries along the lines of "OK, this was a proposed
standard 5 years ago, it has not progressed, does it mean it is now
obsolete?"
FWIW, I wouldn't mind advancing it if
Le mercredi 21 janvier 2009 20:56:23 Dunn, Jeffrey H., vous avez écrit :
> Colleagues,
>
> We have been performing some PMTUD tests and have found that different
> operating systems handle PMTUD differently. Specifically, we found that the
> "ping" application behaves in the following way when the
> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@nokia.com]
>
> > RFC 3879 was published as proposed standard about 5 years ago. Do we
> > intend to leave it at that stage, or to update its status along the
> > standard track?
> >
>
> What did you have in mind? Is there a reason to advance it?
I am getting
Colleagues,
We have been performing some PMTUD tests and have found that different
operating systems handle PMTUD differently. Specifically, we found that the
"ping" application behaves in the following way when the PMTU is set to 1280
and a 1500 octet ICMPv6 echo request is sent to that routed
Christian,
RFC 3879 was published as proposed standard about 5 years ago. Do we
intend to leave it at that stage, or to update its status along the
standard track?
What did you have in mind? Is there a reason to advance it?
Bob
--
Hi,
We'll need a slot for the Address Selection Design Team update, maybe
20 mins or so I'd guess. Discussions have resumed on the team list
so a new draft will probably be out soon capturing that and feedback
from IETF73.
Tim
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 01:23:40PM -0500, Brian Haberman wrote:
> A
13 matches
Mail list logo
