Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: IETF-Announce <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: The IESG <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Ole Troan <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Protocol Action: 'Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6' to Internet Standard (draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-08.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6' (draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-08.txt) as Internet Standard This document is the product of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Suresh Krishnan and Terry Manderson. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis/
Technical Summary This document describes Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6. It is largely derived from RFC 1191, which describes Path MTU Discovery for IP version 4. It obsoletes RFC1981. Working Group Summary The 6MAN working started working on advancing the IPv6 core specifications to Internet Standard at IETF93 July 2015. See: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-6man-3.pdf The working group identified three RFCs to update (RFC2460, RFC4291, and RFC1981) by incorporating updates from other RFCs and Errata, and three to advance in place RFC4443, RFC3596, and RFC4941. After further analysis, the w.g. decided to not reclassify RFC4941 at this time. The working followed the requirements in RFC6410 for advancing a Draft Standard to Internet Standard. While RFC6410 describes how to handle Errata, it doesn't say anything about Updated-By RFCs. The working group, with the advice of our AD, incorporated the changes from the the Updated-By RFC and verified there was interoperability of the updates. All of the Updated-By and errata were brought into the new draft in small steps to allow thorough review of all of the changes. A summary and link to diff from the previous version was sent to the mailing list. All of the changes to each draft were also discussed in detail at IETF94, IETF95, IETF96, and IETF97. All of the changes from RFC1981 are summarized in Appendix B and are ordered by the Internet Draft that brought the change in. This document is an update to RFC1981 that was published prior to RFC2119 being published. Consequently while it does use "should/must" style language in upper and lower case, the document does not cite the RFC2119 definitions. Since the changes in this update were very limited, the w.g. concluded to not change any of this language. A working group last call for moving this and the other two documents to Internet Standard was started on 30 May 2016. Reviews were also requested. Issues found during the last call and reviews were entered into the 6MAN ticket system. These are now closed. Document Quality IPv6 is implemented on most platforms (hosts, routers, servers, etc.), including proprietary and open source. A list of products that have received the IPV6 Ready logo can be found at: https://www.ipv6ready.org/db/index.php/public/?o=4 Most major ISP now support IPv6, as well as many mobile operators. Google’s IPv6 stats at https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html show they are seeing now about 15% of their overall user traffic is IPv6. Country adoption is 29% in the US, Germany 27%, Finland 12%, Japan 14%, Brazil 11%. IPv6 users per AS can be found at http://stats.labs.apnic.net/aspop The University of New Hampshire InterOperability Laboratory (UNH) analyzed the incorporated updates to insure they were implemented and interoperable. No problems were found. Their report can be found at: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-6man-2.pdf No MIB, Media, or other expert reviews are required. Personnel Document Shepherd: Ole Trøan Responsible AD: Suresh Krishnan IETF Last Call Summary The document received lots of comments during IETF last call. The two main classes of issues that were brought up were transport layer related issues and security related issues. These issues have been fixed in the latest version of the document. There was also some concern raised about the effects of ICMPv6 filtering on the Internet on the PMTUD protocol. To address this, text was added to the introduction to describe the effects of ICMPv6 filtering.
RFC Editor Note OLD: Alternatively, the retransmission could be done in immediate response to a notification that the Path MTU was decreased, but only for the specific connection specified by the Packet Too Big message, but only based on the message and connection. NEW: Alternatively, the retransmission could be done in immediate response to a notification that the Path MTU was decreased, but only for the specific connection specified by the Packet Too Big message.