Luigi, In some research papers we have somewhat considered the problem of the MTU. I mean, let' suppose you have a high number of flows to be optimized together. Then, you define a period to multiplex them. But it may happen that, before ending the period, you have enough small packets so as to fill an MTU-sized multiplexed one. At that point, you should end that period, send the packet and start a new period. If you include a size threshold in addition to the period, the method is better. However, perhaps this is just an implementation issue. Do you think we should recommend this in the documents: - know the maximum MTU - use it in addition to the Period in order to trigger the sending of the multiplexed packet. Thanks! Jose De: Luigi Iannone [mailto:g...@gigix.net] Enviado el: lunes, 10 de febrero de 2014 16:40 Para: Jose Saldana CC: tc...@ietf.org; tsv-area@ietf.org Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received comments: Problem 2: Path MTU Hi, On 5 Feb. 2014, at 13:06 , Jose Saldana < <mailto:jsald...@unizar.es> jsald...@unizar.es> wrote:
Problem: Gorry: Perhaps we should also look at PMTU issues? In TCMTF? I would avoid that. MTU is a common problem for any tunnelling mechanism I would more support a "tunnel-spefici-independent" solution (probably to be discussed elsewhere). ciao L. Al: Yes. The operations considerations should be thought about. Solution: (see this thread: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00422.html> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00422.html) The current charter talks about MTU in number 7. Jose _______________________________________________ tcmtf mailing list <mailto:tc...@ietf.org> tc...@ietf.org <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf
