[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option-12.txt> (IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop 
From:       "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin () boeing ! com>
Date:       2022-02-07 16:33:59
Message-ID: dbe44a5a1d1244ec8be70a75b6ea7009 () boeing ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Gorry, either you did not read my concluding paragraph or you read it and are
fully on board with it. It is good that we have list archives, which are a close
second to RFCs in terms of being a permanent record.

Thanks - Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gorry Fairhurst [mailto:gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk]
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2022 8:20 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>; Bob Hinden \
> <bob.hinden@gmail.com>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>; Brian E Carpenter \
>                 <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> Cc: last-call@ietf.org; draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option@ietf.org; Tom Herbert \
>                 <tom@herbertland.com>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option-12.txt> (IPv6 \
> Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option) to Experimental RFC 
> EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.
> 
> 
> 
> On 07/02/2022 16:03, Templin (US), Fred L wrote:
> > I will repeat what I said; getting this right the first time is trivial and \
> > ignoring it the first time ruins the opportunity to use it for bigger and better \
> > purposes for forever. 
> > Bob objects that there has been little uptake in jumbograms, but the correct
> > statement is that there has been little uptake *until now* - IP Parcels will \
> > change all of that. And, not just for the local link, but over the entire path.
> > An example: Source -> 4M -> 2M -> 512K -> 256K -> 1M -> 3M -> Destination.
> > In that case, the MTU option had better report 256K.
> > I will now briefly take up the subject of bull-throwing. I think many of the \
> > people we have seen in these discussions and elsewhere are very skilled in the \
> > art of throwing the bull. Some virtuous few others are genuine in their approach \
> > and want the best technical outcome. I would say to them be authentic; be \
> > genuine; be yourself, and do not succumb to the ways of the hardcore \
> > bull-throwers. 
> > Thanks - Fred
> 
> I'm sorry but I also agree with Bob: I don't see that your proposal
> relates to the IPv6 deployment scenario in the IETF-LC. At this time, we
> haven't seen vendors with support for more than 16 KB frames (for
> various reasons I'll let them explain), and despite some deployment in
> DCs we have yet to see many operational Internet paths that allow more
> than ~ 2 KB.
> 
> I'll look forward with interest to seeing the level of support to deploy
> 4MB MTUs (or whatever size you target) in INTAREA and how challenges
> will be addressed, but I don't see this as a great reason for growing
> the size of the IPv6 HBH PMTU option.
> 
> Gorry

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]