[131866] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (sthaug@nethelp.no)
Sat Nov 6 17:57:31 2010
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 22:57:25 +0100 (CET)
To: gbonser@seven.com
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0B14C7D9@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> > > RFC 4821 PMTUD is that "negotiation" that is "lacking". It is there.
> > > It is deployed. It actually works. No more relying on someone sending
> > > the ICMP packets through in order for PMTUD to work!
> >
> > For some value of "works". There are way too many places filtering
> > ICMP for PMTUD to work consistently. PMTUD is *not* the solution,
> > unfortunately.
>
> I guess you missed the part about 4821 PMTUD does not rely on ICMP.
>
> Modern PMTUD does not rely on ICMP and works even where it is filtered.
As long as the implementations are few and far between:
https://www.psc.edu/~mathis/MTU/
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05816.html
the traditional ICMP-based PMTUD is what most of use face today.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
