[131863] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Sat Nov 6 17:47:52 2010
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 16:47:35 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20101106.224029.41642564.sthaug@nethelp.no>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 11/6/2010 4:40 PM, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
> For some value of "works". There are way too many places filtering
> ICMP for PMTUD to work consistently. PMTUD is *not* the solution,
> unfortunately.
He was referring to the updated RFC 4821.
" In the absence of ICMP messages, the proper MTU is determined by starting
with small packets and probing with successively larger packets. The
bulk of the algorithm is implemented above IP, in the transport layer
(e.g., TCP) or other "Packetization Protocol" that is responsible for
determining packet boundaries."
It is designed to support working without ICMP. It's draw back is the
ramp time, which makes it useless for small transactions, but it can be
argued that small transactions don't need larger MTUs.
Jack
