Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04

Stewart,

> *If*  you care about packet loss, then your only option is to probe the path 
> with with
> synthetic data that exactly mimics the live data, or not to probe at all and 
> live
> with the 1280. As I said 1280 is pretty close to 1496 which is all most 
> networks
> will give you in practice.
Yes, but sending at 1280 does not work for IP tunnels. The whole purpose of the 
minimum MTU was to give space for tunnel headers (1500-1280).

> When I think about the people asking for fast re-route to minimise packet 
> loss, it seems
> very strange to deliberately induce loss to try to stretch the MTU by 15%.
Please show the data that there is significant loss. The measurements I have 
found has not shown that.
If not, then let's please leave that argument on the shelf.

(And please don't read me wrong, I think we should get DNS fixed, that we 
should fix the IP tunnelling protocols, and that we should get IP fragmentation 
deprecated).

But right here, right now. PMTUD is for many problems the only solution on the 
table.
We as a community can choose not to elevate the standard of course, and that 
will of course not have any big consequence.
Are you afraid that elevating 1981, will hinder people from working on new and 
better solutions?

Best regards,
Ole

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP