RE: Re: Last Call: 'Accommodating an MTU/MRU greater than1492 in PPPoE' to Informational RFC
"Veera Tubati \(vtubati\)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pppext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <DFFA342C89421A4AABB019093ACEA2460107573A@xmb-sjc-22c.amer.cisco.com> |
> -----Original Message----- > From: James Carlson [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 10:38 AM > To: Veera Tubati (vtubati) > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Pekka Savola > Subject: RE: [Pppext] Re: Last Call: 'Accommodating an MTU/MRU greater > than1492 in PPPoE' to Informational RFC > > Veera Tubati (vtubati) writes: > > I wonder if draft should state its position about IPCP start while > > MRU test is enabled. > > > > I would think IPCP start should be delayed (if this verification option > > is enabled) till verification is finished and BRAS decides on MTU to be > > used. Else, if there is a TCP session coming in soon after IPCP is up > > and if verification process reduces the MTU later down to 1492 that TCP > > session would be using a wrong MTU and would have connectivity problems. > > I don't see how that'd be helpful. > > If the MTU negotiated at LCP time later turns out to be a problem, > you're going to need to restart LCP anyway, and that will tear down > IPCP. So how does waiting help? At best it avoids a small bounce (IP > goes up briefly, then down and back up again) in an unusual error > case. 1. Draft doesn't imply that LCP would restart in this case. It just states that (section 5.2) sending side wouldn't send packets bigger than 1492. 2. Even if IPCP is restarted it is not going help the cases of PPPoE session starting from a CPE or DSLAM (fig 2 and 3 respectively from the draft) while TCP would be from the end PC. Bouncing IPCP wouldn't really have any bearing on TCP connection which still thinks it can use higher MTU. But agreed that TCP from PC has to come up in a narrow time window (before test could detect a problem with negotiated MRU and adjust the MTU) to hit this problem case. Veera > > And it's something that could be handled in a decent implementation by > keeping track of the MAC address of the peer and remember the MTU > limit. > > -- > James Carlson, KISS Network <[email protected]> > Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 > MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ Pppext mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext