[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Path MTU Discovery

To: "Angelos D. Keromytis" <angelos@aurora.cis.upenn.edu>, Ran Atkinson <rja@inner.net>
Subject: Re: Path MTU Discovery
From: Ran Atkinson <rja@inet.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 97 04:58:44 GMT Standard Time
Cc: Ben Rogers <ben@ascend.com>, Dan McDonald <Dan.McDonald@Eng.sun.com>, ipsec@tis.com
References: <9702110403.AA85679@aurora.cis.upenn.edu>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

--- On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 23:02:35 -0500  "Angelos D. Keromytis" <angelos@AURORA.CIS.UPENN.EDU> wrote:

> I think that, if not mandate copying the DF bit, the new drafts should
> at least present the benefits of doing so and provide guidelines to
> anyone who wants to have his implementation allow PathMTU. Or it could
> be a separate document altogether.

If one treats the outer IP/ESP as a link-layer, then not copying the DF bit
does not break Path MTU Discovery.  The MTU of the IPsec tunnel is defined
by the IPsec implementation at present.  

In any event, I think it would be useful for the next set of drafts to
be clear on this matter.  I'm personally indifferent about what the final
result is.

Ran
rja@inet.org
speaking only for himself

References:

Re: Path MTU Discovery

From: "Angelos D. Keromytis" <angelos@aurora.cis.upenn.edu>

Prev by Date: RE: replay field size
Next by Date: ANX IPSEC bakeoff
Prev by thread: Re: Path MTU Discovery
Next by thread: Re[2]: Path MTU Discovery
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread