[sr-dev] [kamailio/kamailio] Path MTU handling; implicit IPv4 assumption, suggested solution for IPv6 (Issue #3119)

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

> The suggestion to fallback on TCP feels like a hack.

It is not a hack, it is in the specs, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261#section-18.1.1:

```
18.1.1 Sending Requests

   The client side of the transport layer is responsible for sending the
   request and receiving responses.  The user of the transport layer
   passes the client transport the request, an IP address, port,
   transport, and possibly TTL for multicast destinations.

   If a request is within 200 bytes of the path MTU, or if it is larger
   than 1300 bytes and the path MTU is unknown, the request MUST be sent
   using an RFC 2914 congestion controlled transport protocol, such
   as TCP.
```

If someone wants to implement your suggestions, they are more than welcome, but it should be controlled by a parameter.

Should nobody commit to implement this feature request in one month or so, the track item may be closed.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/3119#issuecomment-1132607747
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <kamailio/kamailio/issues/3119/1132607747 at github.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-dev/attachments/20220520/9b9452a1/attachment.htm>