draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-02.txt   draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-03.txt 
Network Working Group J. McCann Network Working Group J. McCann
Internet-Draft Digital Equipment Corporation Internet-Draft Digital Equipment Corporation
Obsoletes: 1981 (if approved) S. Deering Obsoletes: 1981 (if approved) S. Deering
Intended status: Standards Track Retired Intended status: Standards Track Retired
Expires: October 29, 2016 J. Mogul Expires: April 7, 2017 J. Mogul
Digital Equipment Corporation Digital Equipment Corporation
R. Hinden, Ed. R. Hinden, Ed.
Check Point Software Check Point Software
April 27, 2016 October 4, 2016
Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6 Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6
draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-02 draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-03
Abstract Abstract
This document describes Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6. It is This document describes Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6. It is
largely derived from RFC 1191, which describes Path MTU Discovery for largely derived from RFC 1191, which describes Path MTU Discovery for
IP version 4. It obsoletes RFC1981. IP version 4. It obsoletes RFC1981.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 29, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 7, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 29 skipping to change at page 2, line 29
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Implementation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Implementation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Layering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Layering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Storing PMTU information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. Storing PMTU information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. Purging stale PMTU information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.3. Purging stale PMTU information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4. TCP layer actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.4. TCP layer actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5. Issues for other transport protocols . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.5. Issues for other transport protocols . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.6. Management interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.6. Management interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Comparison to RFC 1191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix A. Comparison to RFC 1191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
skipping to change at page 8, line 29 skipping to change at page 8, line 29
If flows [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis] are in use, an implementation If flows [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis] are in use, an implementation
could use the flow id as the local representation of a path. Packets could use the flow id as the local representation of a path. Packets
sent to a particular destination but belonging to different flows may sent to a particular destination but belonging to different flows may
use different paths, with the choice of path depending on the flow use different paths, with the choice of path depending on the flow
id. This approach will result in the use of optimally sized packets id. This approach will result in the use of optimally sized packets
on a per-flow basis, providing finer granularity than PMTU values on a per-flow basis, providing finer granularity than PMTU values
maintained on a per-destination basis. maintained on a per-destination basis.
For source routed packets (i.e. packets containing an IPv6 Routing For source routed packets (i.e. packets containing an IPv6 Routing
header [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis]), the source route may further header [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis]), the source route may further
qualify the local representation of a path. In particular, a packet qualify the local representation of a path.
containing a type 0 Routing header in which all bits in the Strict/
Loose Bit Map are equal to 1 contains a complete path specification.
An implementation could use source route information in the local
representation of a path.
Note: Some paths may be further distinguished by different Note: Some paths may be further distinguished by different
security classifications. The details of such classifications are security classifications. The details of such classifications are
beyond the scope of this memo. beyond the scope of this memo.
Initially, the PMTU value for a path is assumed to be the (known) MTU Initially, the PMTU value for a path is assumed to be the (known) MTU
of the first-hop link. of the first-hop link.
When a Packet Too Big message is received, the node determines which When a Packet Too Big message is received, the node determines which
path the message applies to based on the contents of the Packet Too path the message applies to based on the contents of the Packet Too
skipping to change at page 14, line 22 skipping to change at page 14, line 22
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This document does not have any IANA actions This document does not have any IANA actions
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis] [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis]
Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-04 (work (IPv6) Specification", draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-07 (work
in progress), March 2016. in progress), October 2016.
[ICMPv6] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet [ICMPv6] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, DOI Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, DOI
10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006, 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[CONG] Jacobson, V., "Congestion Avoidance and Control", Proc. [CONG] Jacobson, V., "Congestion Avoidance and Control", Proc.
skipping to change at page 15, line 40 skipping to change at page 15, line 40
MTU plateau tables not needed because there are no old-style MTU plateau tables not needed because there are no old-style
messages messages
Appendix B. Changes Since RFC 1981 Appendix B. Changes Since RFC 1981
This document has the following changes from RFC1981. Numbers This document has the following changes from RFC1981. Numbers
identify the Internet-Draft version that the change was made.: identify the Internet-Draft version that the change was made.:
Working Group Internet Drafts Working Group Internet Drafts
02) Clarified in Section 3. that ICMP Packet Too Big should be 03) Remove text in Section 5.3 regarding RH0 since it was
deprecated by RFC5095
02) Clarified in Section 3 that ICMP Packet Too Big should be
sent even if the node doesn't decrement the hop limit sent even if the node doesn't decrement the hop limit
01) Revised the text about PLPMTUD to use the word "path". 01) Revised the text about PLPMTUD to use the word "path".
01) Editorial changes. 01) Editorial changes.
00) Added text to discard an ICMP Packet Too Big message 00) Added text to discard an ICMP Packet Too Big message
containing an MTU less than the IPv6 minimum link MTU. containing an MTU less than the IPv6 minimum link MTU.
00) Revision of text regarding RFC4821. 00) Revision of text regarding RFC4821.
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
13 lines changed or deleted 12 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/