From: Xin Long <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Michael Tuexen <email@example.com> Cc: "linux-sctp @ vger . kernel . org" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <email@example.com> Subject: Re: add SPP_PLPMTUD_ENABLE/DISABLE flag for spp_flags Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 14:44:20 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CADvbK_eujoHWiM88VDRHmtfXLWrBaBtUBjD2wYqQcQ=VssdaoQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <8C3219EB-1BEF-4F96-B881-8BDCA2EC98EE@freebsd.org> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 2:15 PM Michael Tuexen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > On 19. May 2021, at 18:18, Xin Long <email@example.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 2:33 PM Xin Long <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 1:38 PM Michael Tuexen <email@example.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 18. May 2021, at 18:43, Xin Long <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi, Michael, > >>>> > >>>> We're implementing RFC8899 (PLPMTUD) on Linux SCTP recently, > >>>> and to make this be controlled by setsockopt with > >>>> SCTP_PEER_ADDR_PARAMS, as in > >>>> > >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6458#section-8.1.12: > >>>> > >>>> we need another two flags to add for spp_flags: > >>>> > >>>> SPP_PLPMTUD_ENABLE > >>>> SPP_PLPMTUD_DISABLE > >>>> > >>>> Do you think it makes sense? if yes, does the RFC6458 need to update? > >>>> if not, do you have a better suggestion for it? > >>> It is great new that you want to implement RFC 8899. I plan to do the > >>> same for the FreeBSD stack. > >>> > >>> In my view, RFC 8899 is the right way to implement PMTU discovery. > >>> So I will just use the SPP_PMTUD_ENABLE and SPP_PMTUD_DISABLE. I don't > >>> think that the user needs to control which method is used. > >>> I you want to support multiple versions, I would make that > >>> controllable via a sysctl variable. But I think for FreeBSD, support > >>> for RFC 8899 will be the only way of doing PMTU discovery. There > >>> might be multiple choices for details like how to do the searching, > >>> how long to wait for some events. These will be controllable via > >>> sysctl. > >>> > >>> So in my view, there is no need to extend the socket API. What do you think? > > I just noticed that with multiple versions supported, and without extending > > this API, all applications will have to use the same version as it's > > controlled by > > sysctl. And when switching to another version by sysctl, all > > applications will be > > affected and have to do the switch. that seems not nice. > That is true, but an application can not expect any specific behaviour > right now when they are not disabling PMTUD. > > What about adding a sysctl variable, which defines the default > algorithm and a socket option, which allows to get and set > the algorithm being used. yes, that's also what I'm thinking. sysctl is always used for the default value for future sockets. and the socket option should be added for a socket/asoc's setting. SCTP_PTMUD_METHOD? 0: PTB one 1. PLPMTUD > > Best regards > Michael > > > >> OK, that makes sense to me. > >> > >> Another thing I want to know your opinion on is: do you think the HB > >> should be created > >> separately for PLPMTUD probe, instead of reusing the old HB that > >> checks the link connectivity? > >> As the HB for PLPMTUD probe might get lost, which we don't want to > >> affect the link's > >> connectivity. > >> > >>> > >>> Best regards > >>> Michael > >>>> > >>>> Thanks. > >>> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-19 18:44 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-05-18 16:43 Xin Long 2021-05-18 17:38 ` Michael Tuexen 2021-05-18 18:33 ` Xin Long 2021-05-18 19:19 ` Michael Tuexen 2021-05-19 22:24 ` mleitner 2021-05-20 2:05 ` Xin Long 2021-05-20 7:06 ` tuexen 2021-05-20 15:13 ` Xin Long 2021-05-19 16:18 ` Xin Long 2021-05-19 18:15 ` Michael Tuexen 2021-05-19 18:44 ` Xin Long [this message] 2021-05-19 22:44 ` mleitner 2021-05-19 23:16 ` Michael Tuexen 2021-05-20 0:45 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner 2021-05-20 6:59 ` tuexen 2021-05-20 19:27 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner 2021-05-19 23:10 ` Michael Tuexen
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to='CADvbK_eujoHWiM88VDRHmtfXLWrBaBtUBjD2wYqQcQ=VssdaoQ@mail.gmail.com' \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: add SPP_PLPMTUD_ENABLE/DISABLE flag for spp_flags' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).