[153349] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 day and tunnels
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Andrews)
Tue Jun 5 11:51:00 2012
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 05 Jun 2012 07:38:25 MST."
<E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65D374A86CB@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 00:55:06 +1000
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In message <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65D374A86CB@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing
.com>, "Templin, Fred L" writes:
> A quick comment on probes. Making the tunnel ingress probe
> is tempting but fraught with difficulties; believe me, I
> have tried. So, having the tunnel ingress fragment when
> necessary in conjunction with the original source probing
> is the way forward, and we should advocate both approaches.
>
> RFC4821 specifies how the original source can probe with
> or without tunnels in the path. It does not have any RTT
> delays, because it starts small and then tries for larger
> sizes in parallel with getting the valuable data through
> without loss.
It's useful for TCP but it is not a general solution. PTB should
not be being blocked and for some applications one should just force
minimum mtu use.
> Thanks - Fred
> fred.l.templin@boeing.com
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
