Subject: Re: [Fwd: [pmtud] draft-welzl-pmtud-options-00.txt]

From: Michael Welzl <[email-masked]>
Date: 15 Dec 2003 10:00:26 +0100

On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 09:35, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> > ... I solicit comments!
> > 
> > Too little reaction     :(
> > Does it mean:
> > 
> > [x]    you don't like it
> > [ ]    you DO like it
> > [ ]    you don't care
> 
> 	i don't think it is deployable in a timely manner.  and there are way

I don't think that timely deployability is a must for an
experimental effort such as this!

It is clearly not meant to be a prerequisite for PLPMTUD
or any other effort - the idea is to eventually publish this
as an Experimental RFC, nothing more than that.

>	too many routers configured to drop any packet that has ip_hl != 5.

One of the goals of this experimental proposal is to provide
an enhancement for certain special situations - e.g., tunnels
where you might simply know that there are (usually) no
such routers in between.

Also, we are currently investigating this issue (doing more
exhaustive tests).

So far, all the data I can provide are:

In one of our measurements (which had paths lengths ranging
from approx. 7 to 27 - distribution:
http://www.welzl.at/tmp/hops.eps ), 306 out of 5759 hosts
didn't reply at all when there was an MTU option in our ping
but replied to "normal" pings, which indicates that a router
dropped the packets. This is less than a 10th, and on
average, the path length was around 15 hops or so.
I know that this is only a small test; stay tuned for
further results.

Best regards,
Michael

_______________________________________________
pmtud mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmtud