%% You should probably cite rfc8899 instead of this I-D. @techreport{ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-06, number = {draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-06}, type = {Internet-Draft}, institution = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, note = {Work in Progress}, url = {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud/06/}, author = {Gorry Fairhurst and Tom Jones and Michael Tüxen and Irene Ruengeler}, title = {{Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for Datagram Transports}}, pagetotal = 46, year = 2018, month = nov, day = 20, abstract = {This document describes a robust method for Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) for datagram Packetization Layers (PLs). The document describes an extension to RFC 1191 and RFC 8201, which specifies ICMP-based Path MTU Discovery for IPv4 and IPv6. The method allows a PL, or a datagram application that uses a PL, to discover whether a network path can support the current size of datagram. This can be used to detect and reduce the message size when a sender encounters a network black hole (where packets are discarded, and no ICMP message is received). The method can also probe a network path with progressively larger packets to find whether the maximum packet size can be increased. This allows a sender to determine an appropriate packet size, providing functionally for datagram transports that is equivalent to the Packetization layer PMTUD specification for TCP, specified in RFC 4821. The document also provides implementation notes for incorporating Datagram PMTUD into IETF datagram transports or applications that use datagram transports. When published, this specification updates RFC 4821.}, }