Lars,
On Feb 4, 2017, at 10:40 AM, otroan(_at_)employees(_dot_)org wrote:
Lars,
My apologies: my comments were probably misleading. Certainly, this
document is simply RFC1981 to Std, and hence recommending RFC4821 would
be kind of ou of scope, here.
That say, one might wonder to what extent, and for the general Internet,
RFC1981 can be considered succesful (given the filtering of ICMP
messages). -- i.e., at this point in time you wouldn't rely on RFC1981
(icmp-based pmtud) for path-mtu discovery.
What Fernando said: I'm certainly not opposed to lifting this to Standard,
but it is painting an incorrect picture - PLPMTUD is de facto mandatory
these days, and has been for years.
While I'm all in favour of PLMTUD. It doesn't seem like a complete solution.
PMTUD on the other hand supports all protocols on top of IP.
Looking just at our specifications, we cannot state that PLMTUD can replace
PMTUD. Take RFC2473 (IPv6 tunnelling) for example.
In addition to what Ole says here, I don’t think rfc1981bis is the right place
to describe this. 6MAN is working on an update to IPv6 Node Requirements (
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clw-rfc6434-bis-00 ). I think is a better
place to describe the relationship between PMTUD and PLMTUD, where they work
and don’t, and what the current recommendations are. I hope you will
contribute to that work.
Thanks,
Bob
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP