Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Split up link operation and router operation #172

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Apr 20, 2023
Merged

Split up link operation and router operation #172

merged 2 commits into from Apr 20, 2023

Conversation

DavidSchinazi
Copy link
Collaborator

Fixes #165

draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
where the IPv6 minimum link MTU is violated. IP proxying endpoints that operate
as routers and support IPv6 MUST ensure that the IP tunnel link MTU is at least
1280 (i.e., that they can send HTTP Datagrams with payloads of at least 1280
bytes). This can be accomplished using various techniques:
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This one is a bit complex. In some sense it it the link responsibility to ensure that it supports a MTU of at least 1280. At the same time we have put the verification aspect onto the router to verify that an 1280 bytes MTU encapsulated packet will make it through. So the first bullet below still works. But, the second ones creates this strange interaction where the router needs to ping the other end of the tunnel, and if the min MTU ping fails consistently then withdraw the route until it succeeds.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with you. I don't see a better solution though, so I think we'll have to live with this bit not fitting in perfectly

@DavidSchinazi DavidSchinazi merged commit 2ac8169 into main Apr 20, 2023
2 checks passed
@DavidSchinazi DavidSchinazi deleted the fix165 branch April 20, 2023 17:12
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Clarify the conceptual model of router vs link (Tunnel)
3 participants