hen setting MTU
(and MSS for that matter).
Tim Enos
Ps 127:3-5
-Original Message-
From: Templin, Fred L
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 1:17 PM
To: Bob Hinden ; Dan Wing
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org ; 'Brian E Carpenter'
Subject: RE: PMTU blackhole detection
IMHO, IPv6 links that
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Bob Hinden
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 2:26 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; Bob Hinden; 'Brian E Carpenter'
> Subject: Re: PM
Dan,
> Ben Stasiewicz has done some research on IPv6 MTU problems,
> http://ripe60.ripe.net/presentations/Stasiewicz-Measurements_of_IPv6_Path_MTU_Discovery_Behaviour.pdf
>
Very interesting. A good next step would be to figure out what caused each
type of failure.
Bob
--
Dan,
>> Am I missing something here?
>
> Yes. Over the years, the IETF's own website has suffered two outages
> (and perhaps three) that were attributed to IPv6 PMTUD failures. To
> my knowledge, it has suffered no outages attributed to IPv4 PMTUD
> failures.
>
> Google runs its IPv6-facing pr
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 8:01 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: 'Bob Hinden'; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: PMTU blackhole detection
>
> On 2011-04-20 13:05, Dan Wing
In your letter dated Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:01:05 +1200 you wrote:
>In this situation a 6to4 relay (like any other tunnel end point)
>should behave according to section 3.2 of RFC 4213. That's quite
>a complicated section and I suppose there may be buggy
>implementations, even in the absence of ICMP f
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, Bob Hinden wrote:
Dan,
On the other hand, the difference between 1500 and 1280 is so small, I
wonder if breaking things just because you want to send packets
at 1500 bytes makes a lot of sense.
One other thing, if this makes the IPv6 experience worse than industry
sta
On 2011-04-20 13:05, Dan Wing wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 4:20 PM
>> To: Dan Wing
>> Cc: Bob Hinden; 'Philip Homburg'; 'David Woodhouse'; ipv6@ietf.org
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 4:20 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: Bob Hinden; 'Philip Homburg'; 'David Woodhouse'; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: PMTU blackhole detection
>
> Dan,
Dan,
>> On the other hand, the difference between 1500 and 1280 is so small, I
>> wonder if breaking things just because you want to send packets
>> at 1500 bytes makes a lot of sense.
>>
>> One other thing, if this makes the IPv6 experience worse than industry
>> standard for IPv4, then maybe
> -Original Message-
> From: pch-b6b534...@u-1.phicoh.com [mailto:pch-b6B5344D9@u-
> 1.phicoh.com] On Behalf Of Philip Homburg
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 1:29 AM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: PMTU blackhole detection
>
> In your letter d
In your letter dated Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:45:45 -0700 you wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Philip Homburg
>> On the other hand, the difference between 1500 and 1280 is so small, I
>> wonder if breaking things just beca
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Philip Homburg
> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 3:44 AM
> To: David Woodhouse
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: PMTU blackhole detection
>
> In your letter date
In your letter dated Sat, 16 Apr 2011 15:28:09 +0200 (CEST) you wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, Philip Homburg wrote:
>
>> PMTU blackhole detection seemed so obvious to me, that I never bothered to
>> find out if there was an RFC specifying that it should be done.
>
><
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, Philip Homburg wrote:
PMTU blackhole detection seemed so obvious to me, that I never bothered to
find out if there was an RFC specifying that it should be done.
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4821> is what you're looking for I guess?
--
Mikael Abrahamsson
In your letter dated Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:28:53 +0100 you wrote:
>On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 11:17 +0200, Philip Homburg wrote:
>>
>> PMTU blackhole detection seemed so obvious to me, that I never bothered to
>> find out if there was an RFC specifying that it should be done.
>
PMTU blackhole detection seemed so obvious to me, that I never bothered to
find out if there was an RFC specifying that it should be done. That is, until
I encountered an admin said that he didn't do PMTU blackhole detection because
end-users should just fix their systems (the irony is that
17 matches
Mail list logo