[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05

Network Working Group                                     I. van Beijnum
Internet-Draft                                                Consultant
Expires: December 29, 2007                                 June 29, 2007


                 IPv6 Extensions for Multi-MTU Subnets
                    draft-van-beijnum-multi-mtu-00

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).


Abstract

  In the early days of the internet, many different link types with many
  different maximum packet sizes were in use. For point-to-point or
  point-to-multipoint links, there are still some other link types (PPP,
  ATM, Packet over SONET), but shared subnets are almost exclusively
  implemented as ethernets. Even though the relevant standards madate a
  1500 byte maximum packet size for ethernet, more and more ethernet
  equipment is capable of handling packets bigger than 1500 bytes.
  However, since this capability isn't standardized, it's seldom used
  today, despite the potential performance benefits of using larger


Van Beijnum            Expires December 29, 2007                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    IPv6 Extensions for Multi-MTU Subnets        June 2007


  packets. This document specifies a mechanism to negotiate per-neighbor
  maximum packet sizes so that nodes on a shared subnet may use the
  maximum mutually supported packet size between them without being
  limited by nodes with smaller maximum sizes on the same subnet.

1 Introduction

  Some protocols inherently generate small packets. Examples are VoIP,
  where it's necessary to send packets frequently before much data can
  be gathered to fill up the packet, and the DNS, where the queries are
  inherently small and the returned results also rarely fill up a full
  1500-byte packet. However, most data that is transferred across the
  internet and private networks is at least several kilobytes in size
  (often much larger) and requires segmentation by TCP or another
  transport protocol. These types of data transfer can benefit from
  larger packets in several ways:

  1. A higher data-to-header ratio makes for fewer overhead bytes

  2. Fewer packets means fewer per-packet operations on the source and
     destination hosts

  3. Fewer packets also means fewer per-packet operations in routers and
     middleboxes

  4. TCP performance tends to increase with larger packet sizes

  Even though today, the capability to use larger packets (often called
  jumboframes) is present in a lot of ethernet hardware, this capability
  isn't used because IP assumes a common MTU size for all nodes
  connected to a link or subnet. In practice, this means that using a
  larger MTU requires manual configuration of the the non-standard MTU
  size on all hosts and routers and possibly on switches. Also, the MTU
  size for a subnet is limited to that of the least capable router, host
  or switch.

  This document proposes to end this situation using several new IPv6
  options and messages:

  1. An additional router advertisement MTU option to limit higher
     maximum packet sizes

  2. A new switch advertisement message, similar to a router
     advertisement message, so that switches can announce the maximum
     packet size they support

  3. A neighbor discovery option that allows nodes to inform their
     neighbors of the maximum packet size they support



Van Beijnum            Expires December 29, 2007                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    IPv6 Extensions for Multi-MTU Subnets        June 2007


  4. A new ICMPv6 message for confirming that packets with an increased
     maximum size can be transmitted and received successfully

  Nodes running IPv6 may take advantage of these mechanisms to send
  packets larger than the standard maximum size. Since IPv4 doesn't
  support equivalent mechanisms, support for IPv4 requires additional
  work that is best carried out after deployment experience with IPv6.

2 Terminology

  MTU:
      Maximum Transmission Unit. This is the maximum IP packet size in
      bytes supported on a link, towards a neighbor or towards a remote
      correspondent. In some cases, the term MRU (maximum receive unit)
      would be more appropriate, but for consistency, the term MTU is
      used throughout this document.

  Advised MTU:
      The MTU that is considered the best or safe choice at a given time
      on a given link.

  Allowed MTU:
      The maximum MTU allowed administratively.

  Local MTU:
      The maximum packet size considered usable on a node, based on the
      physical MTU, the allowed MTU and advised MTUs.

  Neighbor MTU:
      The maximum packet size that may be used towards a given on-link
      neighbor.

  Off-link MTU:
      The maximum packet size that is appropriate for communicating with
      off-link correspondents.

  Physical MTU:
      The MTU reported by the driver for an interface when operating at
      a given link speed.

  Tentative neighbor MTU:
      The maximum packet size advertised by a neighbor.

3 Disadvantages of larger packets

  Although often desirable, the use of larger packets isn't universally
  advantageous for the following reasons:




Van Beijnum            Expires December 29, 2007                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    IPv6 Extensions for Multi-MTU Subnets        June 2007


  1. Increased delay and jitter
  2. Increased reliance on path MTU discovery
  3. Increased packet loss through bit errors
  4. Increased risk of undetected bit errors

3.1 Delay and jitter

  An low-bandwidth links, the additional time it takes to transmit
  larger packets may lead to unacceptable delays. For instance,
  transmitting a 9000-byte packet takes 7.23 milliseconds at 10 Mbps,
  while transmitting a 1500-byte packet takes only 1.23 ms. Once
  transmission of a packet has started, additional traffic must wait for
  the transmission to finish, so a larger maximum packet size
  immediately leads to a higher worst-case head-of-line blocking delay,
  and as such, to a bigger difference between the best and worst cases
  (jitter). The increase in average delay depends on the number of
  packets that are buffered, the average packet size and the queuing
  strategy in use. Buffer sizes vary greatly, but assuming 40 buffers
  (not uncommon) leads to the following results:

  Speed        500     1500     4500     9000    16384    65535

  10 Mbps    17.22    49.21   145.22   289.22   525.50  2098.34
  100 Mbps    1.72     4.92    14.52    28.92    52.55   209.83
  1 Gbps      0.17     0.49     1.45     2.89     5.26    20.98
  10 Gbps     0.02     0.05     0.15     0.29     0.52     2.01

  In milliseconds and counting 38 additional bytes of ethernet overhead.

  If we assume that the delays involved with 1500-byte packets on 100
  Mbps ethernet are acceptable for most, if not all, applications, then
  the conclusion must be that 9000-byte packets on 1 Gbps ethernet
  should also be acceptable. At 10 Gbps ethernet, much larger packet
  sizes could be accommodated without adverse impact on delay-sensitive
  applications. Below 100 Mbps, larger packet sizes are probably not
  advisable.

3.2 Path MTU Discovery problems

  PMTUD issues arise when routers can't fragment packets in transit
  because the DF bit is set or because the packet is IPv6, but the
  packet is too large to be forwarded over the next link, and the
  resulting "packet too big" ICMP messages from the router don't make it
  back to the sending host. This will typically happen when there is an
  MTU bottleneck somewhere in the middle of the path. If the MTU
  bottleneck is located at either end, the TCP MSS (maximum segment
  size) option makes sure that TCP packets conform to the limited MTU.
  PMTUD problems are of course possible with non-TCP protocols, but this
  is rare in practice.


Van Beijnum            Expires December 29, 2007                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    IPv6 Extensions for Multi-MTU Subnets        June 2007


  Taking the delay and jitter issues to heart, maximum packet sizes
  should be larger for faster links. This means that in the majority of
  cases, the MTU bottleneck will tend to be at one of the ends of a
  path, rather than somewhere in the middle.

  A crucial difference between PMTUD problems that result from MTUs
  smaller than the standard 1500 bytes and PMTUD problems that result
  from MTUs larger than the standard 1500 bytes is that in the latter
  case, only a party that's actually using the non-standard MTU is
  affected. This puts potential problems and potential benefits in the
  same place so it's always possible to revert to a 1500-byte MTU if
  PMTUD problems can't be resolved otherwise.

  Considering the above and the work that's going on in the IETF to
  resolve PMTUD issues as they exist today, means that increasing MTUs
  where desired doesn't involve undue risks.

3.3 Packet loss through bit errors

  All transmission media are subject to bit errors. In many cases, a bit
  error leads to a CRC failure, after which the packet is lost. In other
  cases, packets are retransmitted a number of times, but if error
  conditions are severe, packets may still be lost because an error
  occurred at every try. Using larger packets means that the chance of a
  packet being lost due to errors increases. And when a packet is lost,
  more data has to be retransmitted.

  Both per-packet overhead and loss through errors reduce the amount of
  usable data transferred. The optimum tradeoff is reached when both
  types of loss are equal. If we make the simplifying assumption that
  the relationship between the bit error rate of a medium and the
  resulting number of lost packets is linear with packet size, the
  optimum packet size is computed as follows:

  packet size = sqrt(overhead bytes / bit error rate)

  For IPv6 in ethernet framing, with 14 bytes of ethernet header, 40
  bytes of IPv6 header, 20 bytes of TCP header and 32 bits of ethernet
  CRC the total number of bytes transmitted is 1538 while the useful
  data is 1440. (The preamble and inter frame gap are not relevant for
  error rate purposes.) 78 bytes of overhead would result in a 1518-byte
  frame length for a bit error rate of 10^-5.3.

  Note that the minimum BER for 1000BASE-T is 10^-10, which implies an
  optimum packet size of 312250 bytes.

  In practice, it's better to err on the side of smaller packets and
  lower packet loss to avoid triggering TCP congestion mechanisms.



Van Beijnum            Expires December 29, 2007                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    IPv6 Extensions for Multi-MTU Subnets        June 2007


  However, it's obvious that current maximum packet sizes are far below
  the optimum size with respect to optimum throughput.

3.4 Undetected bit errors

  Nearly all link layers employ some kind of checksum to detect bit
  errors so that packets with errors can be discarded. In the case of
  ethernet, this is a frame check sequence in the form of a 32-bit CRC.
  The error detecting properties of the CRC are twofold: the minimum
  Hamming distance and the statistical unlikeliness of two packets
  resulting in the same CRC. Depending on the size of the packet, there
  is a minimum Hamming distance between two possible packets that result
  in the same CRC. For ethernet packets between 376 and 11454 bytes long
  (including), the Hamming distance is 3 [CRC]. So all packets where
  transmission errors resulted in one or two flipped bits are detected.
  If 3 or more bits are flipped, most errors are caught because only in
  very few cases, the new bit pattern results in the same CRC as the old
  bit pattern. In theory, the chance of two packets having the same
  CRC-32 is 1 in 2^32, but this assumes the CRC is as strong as it
  possibly could be.

  It has been suggested that increasing packet lengths reduce the
  effectiveness of the CRC-32. For the statistical aspect of the CRC,
  this isn't true. Again, assuming a linear relationship between the
  likelihood of bit errors in a packet and the bit error rate, doubling
  the packet size means doubling the chance of a given number of bit
  errors in the packet. In turn, this doubles the chance of a packet
  with bit errors going undetected by the CRC. However, because the
  packet is twice as long, only half the number of packets is required
  to transmit any given amount of data. These aspects cancel each other
  out so the probability of a undetected errors occurring in any given
  data transfer doesn't vary with packet size when only considering the
  statistical properties of the CRC.

  Obviously, choosing a packet size that leads to a reduced Hamming
  distance greatly increases the risk of undetected bit errors. However,
  even choosing a larger packet size with a Hamming distance of 3 leads
  to a reduction in error detection strength. The likelihood of a packet
  having enough bit errors to satisfy a given Hamming distance (packet
  error rate) and then generate the same CRC is:

  PER = (packet length in bits * BER) ^ H / 2^32

  The likelihood of a packet with enough bit errors to meet the Hamming
  distance and then generate an identical CRC in a transmission of a
  certain number of bits is:

  TER = transmission length / packet length * PER



Van Beijnum            Expires December 29, 2007                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    IPv6 Extensions for Multi-MTU Subnets        June 2007


  In other words:

  TER = transmission length / (packet length ^ (H - 1) * BER ^ H) / 2^32

  (Hence the irrelevance of the packet length for a Hamming distance of
  1.)

  For a 400 GB (approximately one hour) transmission over 1000BASE-T
  with a BER of 10^-10 and a 1518-byte ethernet frame length this means:

  TER = 3.44*10^12 * 12144 ^ 2 * 10^-10 ^ 3 / 2^32 = 1.18*10^-19

  For 11454-byte packets this becomes:

  TER = 3.44*10^12 * 91632 ^ 2 * 10^-10 ^ 3 / 2^32 = 6.73*10^-18

  Please note that this is 14 orders of magnitude better than the naive
  assumption of a Hamming distance of 1 suggests for standard 1518-byte
  ethernet frames:

  TER = 3.44*10^12 * 12144 ^ 0 * 10^-10 ^ 1 / 2^32 = 9.73*10^-4

  So the strength of the CRC, assuming a Hamming distance of 3, goes
  down with the square of the factor by which the packet length is
  increased. And it goes down with the third power of any increase of
  the bit error rate. However, this discussion is largely academic
  because of the assumption that bit errors happen in isolation. For
  instance, 1000BASE-T transmits two bits per symbol over four wire
  pairs, so bit errors are much more likely to (at least) happen in
  pairs rather than isolated.

  Also, it should be possible to implement stronger frame check
  sequences for newer versions of ethernet. Unlike the packet length,
  the FCS is something switches can change when interconnecting
  different types of ethernet without harming interoperability.

3.5 Conclusion

  Larger packets aren't universally desireable. The factors that factor
  into the decision to use larger packets include:

  - A link's bit error rate
  - The number of bits per symbol on a link and hence the likelihood of
    multiple bit errors in a single packet
  - The strength of the Frame Check Sequence
  - The link speed
  - The number of buffers
  - Queuing strategy



Van Beijnum            Expires December 29, 2007                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    IPv6 Extensions for Multi-MTU Subnets        June 2007


  This means that choosing a good maximum packet size is, initially at
  least, the responsibility of hardware vendors. On top of that, robust
  mechanisms must be available to operators to further limit maximum
  packet sizes where appropriate.

4 The protocol mechanisms

  The basic idea is that nodes are free to negotiate larger MTUs with
  neighbors. However, to avoid problems, test packets are sent first
  before larger packets are used for actual traffic, and routers and
  switches may inform nodes of MTU limitations that are best observed
  or are mandatory to observe.

4.1 The variable MTU router advertisement option

  Routers use this option to inform hosts on connected subnets about the
  maximum allowed MTU for a given link speed and the off-link MTU that
  should be used towards off-link destinations.

                       1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |     Type      |    Length     |           Reserved            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                         Off-link MTU                          |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |          Reserved       | Pri |          Link speed           |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                          Allowed MTU                          |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  Type: TBD

  Length: 2

  Reserved: 0 on transmission, ignored on reception.

  Off-link MTU:
      This is the maximum packet size that a router can forward to other
      links it connects to. Hosts SHOULD use a TCP MSS option based on
      this value in all TCP sessions and limit packets sent to off-link
      destinations to this maximum. The off-link MTU must be at least
      1280. A value of 0 means the off-link MTU is undefined and hosts
      should use their physical MTU in TCP MSS options and limit packets
      sent to routers to the maximum MTU the router supports as
      discovered through the neighbor discovery option.





Van Beijnum            Expires December 29, 2007                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    IPv6 Extensions for Multi-MTU Subnets        June 2007


  Pri:
      Priority. Values have the following meaning:

      000: Vendor default
      001: Local override of 000
      010: Site default
      011: Local override of 010
      100: Subnet default
      101: Local override of 100
      110: Per-node setting
      111: Local override of 110

      Vendors may only use priority 000 in default configurations.
      Site-wide administrative settings may only use 000 and 010.
      Subnet-specific administrative settings may use 000, 010 or 110,
      but not 001, 011, 101 or 111.

  Link speed:
      Minimum link speed the option may apply to. Values from 0 to 49151
      indicate a link speed in megabits per second. Values from 49152 to
      65535 are reserved for future use, but imply a link speed of more
      than 49151 Mbps. Hosts MUST ignore all options with a link speed
      value that's higher than the current link speed of the interface
      the option is received over. For instance, if a host has an
      interface that supports 10, 100 and 1000 Mbps ethernet which
      currently operates at 100 Mbps, and the host receives options
      with link speed values of 100 and 1000 over that interface, the
      option with the link speed of 100 is processed and the option
      with the link speed of 1000 is ignored.

  Allowed MTU:
      The maximum packets size allowed on a link. Packets larger than
      this value MUST NOT be sent over the link in question. The allowed
      MTU MUST be at least 1500. A value of 0 means that the allowed
      MTU is undefined and no maximum MTU is enforced.

  The number of variable MTU options in router advertisements is limited
  to a maximum of 4.

  Hosts are expected to recover the variable MTU options from the router
  advertisements of at least the router they select as a default router,
  but it's allowed (not required) to recover options from multiple
  routers. The same option, or data constituting the same information,
  may be learned from other sources, such as local configuration and/or
  DHCPv6. Host MUST only consider variable MTU options where the value
  of the link speed field doesn't exceed that of the current link speed
  of the associated interface. Any options (or equivalents) that satisfy
  this condition are ordered by the priority, link speed and allowed MTU
  fields, in that order. Hosts SHOULD copy the allowed MTU and off-link


Van Beijnum            Expires December 29, 2007                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft    IPv6 Extensions for Multi-MTU Subnets        June 2007


  MTU information, if specified, from the option (or equivalent) with
  the largest value for the concatenation of these three fields.

4.2 Changes to the RA MTU option semantics

  Hosts are currently supposed to ignore an MTU of more than 1500 in the
  MTU option in router advertisements on ethernet links [RFC2464]. This
  makes it impossible to use an MTU larger than 1500 bytes for multicast
  packets. In order to lift this limitation, routers and hosts that
  implement variable MTU subnets may advertise and accept, respectively,
  an MTU option with an MTU larger than 1500. Hosts should use the
  minimum of the maximum feasible MTU and the MTU in the RA MTU option
  for the transmission of multicast packets.

  Note that advertising an MTU option larger than 1500 can only work on
  subnets where all the hosts implement variable MTU subnets.

4.3 The switch MTU advertisement message

  Switches and other layer 2 devices MAY advertise the maximum MTU they
  support in an ICMPv6 [RFC2463] message sent to multicast address TBD.
  The format of this ICMPv6 message is as follows:

                       1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |     Type      |     Code      |          Checksum             |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                        Number of MTUs                         |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                                                               |
  +                       Switch identifier                       +
  |                                                               |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |            Reserved           |         Link speed 1          |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                         Advised MTU 1                         |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |            Reserved           |         Link speed 2          |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                         Advised MTU 2                         |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  ...
  |            Reserved           |         Link speed N          |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                         Advised MTU N                         |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  Type: TBD (informational)


Van Beijnum            Expires December 29, 2007               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft    IPv6 Extensions for Multi-MTU Subnets        June 2007


  Code: TBD

  Checksum: see [RFC2463]

  Number of MTUs:
      Number of times the reserved/link speed/advised MTU fields are
      repeated for different link speed values. The minimum is 1, the
      maximum 4.

  Switch identifier: a 64-bit value that is unique to the switch.

  Reserved: 0 on transmission, ignored on reception.

  Link speed:
      Minimum link speed the option may apply to. Values from 0 to 49151
      indicate a link speed in megabits per second. Values from 49152 to
      65535 are reserved for future use, but imply a link speed of more
      than 49151 Mbps. Hosts MUST ignore all options with a link speed
      value that's lower than the current link speed of the interface
      the option is received over. Note that this is the opposite
      behavior of that specified for the link speed in the RA variable
      MTU option.

  Advised MTU:
      The IPv6 MTU the switch supports on ports operating at the
      indicated link speed. In the case of ethernet, the IPv6 MTU is the
      maximum frame size after subtracting the size of the VLAN tag, the
      14-byte Ethernet II header and the frame check sequence.

  Switch MTU advertisements should be sent out at 5-minute intervals.
  When a port transitions from an inactive or disconnected to an active
  state, the interval MAY be reduced to 60 seconds, such that if it has
  been 60 seconds or longer ago that the last switch MTU advertisement
  was sent out, a switch MTU advertisement is sent out immediately.

  If the switch doesn't otherwise implement IPv6, or the IPv6 protocol
  is inactive, the IPv6 source address should be the unspecified
  address. Since all the information in the message is thus known in
  advance, the entire message, including the checksum, may be
  pre-calculated without the need to implement IPv6 in the switch.

  Host SHOULD monitor switch MTU advertisement messages, using the
  switch identifier field to detect refreshes/duplicates, and retain all
  switch MTU advertisements for 10 minutes. When the switch MTU
  advertisement information changes (new advertisements, new information
  in previously known advertisements, advertisements expire), hosts
  SHOULD select the minimum advised MTU value where the associated link
  speed is equal to or higher than the current link speed on the
  associated interface. The thusly recovered advised MTU for the link is


Van Beijnum            Expires December 29, 2007               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft    IPv6 Extensions for Multi-MTU Subnets        June 2007


  the minimum of the MTUs supported by all the switches for this
  particular link speed if all switches implement the switch MTU
  advertisement mechanism.

4.4 The neighbor discovery MTU option

  A node that implements the variable MTU subnet capability SHOULD
  include an MTU option in both neighbor solicitation and neighbor
  advertisement messages [RFC2461]. A node MAY omit the option if the
  use of a larger MTU isn't desired at that time or if the MTU it would
  advertise is equal to or lower than the MTU that would otherwise be
  used. However, there is no requirement to omit the option depending on
  the value of the different MTU variables as the receiver must
  implement the logic required to determine which MTU to use anyway.

  The format of the neighbor discovery MTU option is as follows:

   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |     Type      |    Length     |           Reserved            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                              MTU                              |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  Type: TBD

  Length: 1

  Reserved: set to 0 on transmission, ignored on reception.

  MTU:
      The maximum packet size the node is prepared to send and receive,
      which is copied from the local MTU. The minimum valid value is
      1280.

  Reception of a neighbor solicitation or a neighbor advertisement
  triggers the sending of an ICMPv6 MTU detection message.

  The MTU detection message

  Since it's possible that there are layer 2 devices that don't
  implement the switch MTU advertisement message in the path between two
  nodes, it's necessary to make that it is indeed possible to send and
  receive packets larger than the standard MTU. This is what the ICMPv6
  MTU detection message is for. It has the following format:






Van Beijnum            Expires December 29, 2007               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft    IPv6 Extensions for Multi-MTU Subnets        June 2007


                       1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |     Type      |     Code      |          Checksum             |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |R|                          Reserved                           |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                          Packet size                          |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                            Padding                            |
  ...
  |                                                               |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  Type: TBD (informational)

  Code: TBD

  Checksum: see [RFC2463]

  R (reply requested): 0: no reply requested, 1: reply requested

  Reserved: 0 on transmission, ignored on reception

  Packet size:
      Size of this packet, including IPv6 and other headers. A value of
      0 indicates no padding is present and the size of the packet
      shouldn't be considered.

  Padding:
      0 or more 0 bytes to bring the packet to the specified packet
      size.

  In order to avoid sending large numbers of packets that can't be
  handled properly by switches or other layer 2 devices, after sending a
  large MTU detection packet, no other maximum size MTU detection
  packets may be transmitted on the same interface for 60 seconds or
  until a large MTU detection packet has been received, whichever
  happens first. In this context, "large" means larger than the standard
  MTU size for the link type, i.e., 1500 bytes for ethernet.

  When variable MTU subnet capability is detected for a neighbor by the
  presence of an MTU option in a neighbor solicitation or neighbor
  discovery message, an MTU detection message is constructed as follows:

  R:
      Set to 0 if the neighbor MTU is known and confirmed, set to 1
      otherwise.



Van Beijnum            Expires December 29, 2007               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft    IPv6 Extensions for Multi-MTU Subnets        June 2007


  Packet size:
      Equal to the minimum of the local MTU and the (tentative) neighbor
      MTU.

  When an MTU detection packet is received, the size of the packet is
  checked against the value in the packet size field to detect
  truncation in transit. If the packet size and the packet size field
  don't match, or if the packet size is smaller than 1280 bytes, the
  message is silently discarded.

  If the received message has the R flag set to 1, a reply is
  constructed as follows:

  R: 0

  Packet size:
      Equal to the minimum of the local MTU and the neighbor MTU.

  The neighbor MTU overrules information in the TCP MSS option in TCP
  sessions towards that neighbor. Neighbor MTU information expires along
  with link addresses learned through neighbor discovery and upon dead
  neighbor detection.

4.5 Determining the local MTU

  The local MTU is the value communicated to neighbors. It is the
  minimum of the physical MTU for an interface and the allowed MTU as
  advertised by a router or learned through other means. The local MTU
  may be further reduced by the reception of switch MTU advertisements.

5 References

5.1 Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2461]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor
              Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461,
              December 1998.

   [RFC2462]  Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
              Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.

5.2 Informative References

   [CRC]      Jain, R., ""Error Characteristics of Fiber Distributed
              Data Interface (FDDI)", IEEE Transactions on
              Communications, August 1990.


Van Beijnum            Expires December 29, 2007               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft    IPv6 Extensions for Multi-MTU Subnets        June 2007


6 Document and Author Information

  This document expires December, 2007. The latest version will always
  be available at http://www.muada.com/drafts/. Please direct questions
  and comments to the ipv6 or int area mailinglists or directly to the
  author:

    Iljitsch van Beijnum

    Email: iljitsch@muada.com

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement


Van Beijnum            Expires December 29, 2007               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft    IPv6 Extensions for Multi-MTU Subnets        June 2007


   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).











































Van Beijnum            Expires December 29, 2007               [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/