Subject: [6man] #13 (rfc1981bis): Regardless of whether it decrements the Hop Limit

From: "6man issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 18:37:04 -0000

#13: Regardless of whether it decrements the Hop Limit

 .. forwarded by some node (regardless of whether it decrements the Hop
 Limit) along the path

 How can "regardless of whether it decrements the Hop Limit" be
 misunderstood?
 Should a bridge do PMTUD? ;-)

 If this is for RFC4389, it is already described there. I do wonder if we
 should drop this "clarification" from 1981bis as it seems a little
 'disclarifying' to me. Albeit correct in the ND proxy case. How did that
 experiment go btw? ;-)

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |      Owner:  [email-masked]
  [email-masked]   |     Status:  new
     Type:  defect       |  Milestone:
 Priority:  major        |    Version:
Component:  rfc1981bis   |   Keywords:
 Severity:  In WG Last   |
  Call                   |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/trac/ticket/13>
6man <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/>

---

From: "6man issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:10:15 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Saying "independent of whether it decrements the Hop Limit" might be
 better.

 However, undefended of which word we choose, I think is a useful
 clarification as some thought that it only needed to preformed if the node
 decremented the Hop Limit.

 Recommend this be closed.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-6man-
  [email-masked]   |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major        |   Milestone:
Component:  rfc1981bis   |     Version:
 Severity:  In WG Last   |  Resolution:
  Call                   |
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/trac/ticket/13#comment:1>
6man <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:07:51 +0200

> decremented the Hop Limit.

what is this "thing" that does not decrement the Hop Limit but sends ICMP?

Ole

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 07:45:57 -0700

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 1:07 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
> 

There was some discussion at the last 6man meeting that there were devices that did just that, and it needed to be clarified.

Unless someone speaks up to defend this text, I am fine with removing it.  The “regardless” text is in this paragraph:

   If any of the packets sent on that path are too large to be forwarded
   by some node (regardless of whether it decrements the Hop Limit)
   along the path, that node will discard them and return ICMPv6 Packet
   Too Big messages [ICMPv6].

Bob