RE: PMTU blackhole detection

2011-04-22 Thread Timothy E. Enos
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

RE: PMTU blackhole detection

2011-04-22 Thread Templin, Fred L
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

Re: PMTU blackhole detection

2011-04-20 Thread Bob Hinden
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 --

Re: PMTU blackhole detection

2011-04-20 Thread Bob Hinden
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

RE: PMTU blackhole detection

2011-04-20 Thread Dan Wing
> -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

Re: PMTU blackhole detection

2011-04-20 Thread Philip Homburg
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

Re: PMTU blackhole detection

2011-04-20 Thread Mohacsi Janos
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

Re: PMTU blackhole detection

2011-04-19 Thread Brian E Carpenter
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

RE: PMTU blackhole detection

2011-04-19 Thread Dan Wing
> -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,

Re: PMTU blackhole detection

2011-04-19 Thread Bob Hinden
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

RE: PMTU blackhole detection

2011-04-19 Thread Dan Wing
> -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

Re: PMTU blackhole detection

2011-04-19 Thread Philip Homburg
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

RE: PMTU blackhole detection

2011-04-18 Thread Dan Wing
> -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

Re: PMTU blackhole detection

2011-04-18 Thread Philip Homburg
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. > >

Re: PMTU blackhole detection

2011-04-16 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson
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. is what you're looking for I guess? -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...

Re: PMTU blackhole detection

2011-04-16 Thread Philip Homburg
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. > >Conversely... > >It's alw