On 2014-11-10 09:10, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Jeroen Massar <jer...@massar.ch> wrote: >> There used to be a handy ipv6@google address for reporting things. This >> nowadays bounces. > > yes, it changed to noc@ I think.
Thus, in case of an IPv6 issue, contacting n...@google.com is the right thing to do? Good to hear that the folks there are aware of IPv6. > and yup, damian (and a few other folk) beat the mtu issue with a cold trout. Thanks for that. >From a message by Lorenzo: http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/2014-November/010278.html it seems Google is breaking PMTUD on purpose preferring to force the MSS to a minimum value instead. But the problem there is not PMTUD, but what is described in: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-v6ops-jaeggli-pmtud-ecmp-problem-01 Which makes sense on a Google-scale of connections. I am not sure that breaking PTMUD and forcing MSS is the correct answer though. Forcing MSS is likely a good intermediary step, actually fixing the load-balancer is a better one though. I am now wondering if that is what is hitting Akamai too, as that would explain the problem being seen: contacting the same IP sometimes works and sometimes does not; which could be a result of the real endnode not always seeing the correct ICMP and thus knowing the correct MTU. Greets, Jeroen
