I support the WG adoption of this draft with the following comments: - IPv6 packets can't be fragmented by intermediate routers. Meaning SR ingress routers can't fragment the packet even if SR-MTU is above the limit. Suggest adding more description in Section 5.4 (Handling behaviors on the headend) when SR-MTU does exceed the limit. Does the headend node have option of selecting a subset of SIDs if the SR-MTU is exceeding the limit? Or not adding SIDs at all? Or sending ICMPv6 message back to the hosts?
- As the end hosts relies on Path MTU Discovery to determine the MTU, maybe the SR ingress nodes need to use the longest possible SR header for Path MTU Discovery packets? So that the original hosts can reduce the packet size no matter which SR path is taken. Thanks, Linda Dunbar -----邮件原件----- 发件人: forwardingalgori...@ietf.org [mailto:forwardingalgori...@ietf.org] 代表 Alvaro Retana 发送时间: 2024年6月18日 23:42 收件人: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org> 抄送: draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-pol...@ietf.org; spring Chairs <spring-cha...@ietf.org> 主题: [spring] spring WG Adoption Call for draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy Dear WG: This message starts a two-week adoption call for draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy, ending on July/2nd. From the Abstract: This document defines the Path MTU (PMTU) for Segment Routing (SR) Policy (called SR-PMTU). It applies to both Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) and SR-MPLS. This document specifies the framework of SR-PMTU for SR Policy including the link MTU collection, the SR-PMTU computation, the SR-PMTU enforcement, and the handling behaviours on the headend. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy/ Please review the draft and consider whether you support its adoption by the WG. Please share any thoughts with the list to indicate support or opposition -- this is not a vote. If you are willing to provide a more in-depth review, please state it explicitly to give the chairs an indication of the energy level in the working group willing to work on the document. WG adoption is the start of the process. The fundamental question is whether you agree the proposal is worth the WG's time to work on and whether this draft represents a good starting point. The chairs are particularly interested in hearing the opinions of people who are not authors of the document. Note that draft-ietf-pce-pcep-pmtu ("Support for Path MTU (PMTU) in the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)") Normatively references this document. It may be helpful to look at that document too. Thanks! Alvaro (for the Chairs) _______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org _______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org _______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org _______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org
