IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-area] IP parcels

"touch@strayalpha.com" <touch@strayalpha.com> Thu, 27 January 2022 22:17 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3E463A13AC for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 14:17:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V622aQS0k34N for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 14:17:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-5.web-hosting.com (server217-5.web-hosting.com [198.54.116.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 417623A13AB for <int-area@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 14:17:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=R4o8mIJrefKAANQFMm44BFWxjHbd0+E/7ed4SKwmCCk=; b=y9NIIX/s0T9az+xlMnyPLrA5j1 z10QYbTwpEyJJUVEQA2JX5D8WU1P67NOYehVy7vMa7++cKKJ4EEQxfQpeb2Azw+xNfdJuvoTy2y7Y iZiTfRIRt/oi/h0iW8/FTGycZM6J3oAWLKPEEu1LE1KKdtt6dB3BPjaw61bVnDqgEuHUCS8V3GiqE 8HamoiEe/bQIAtJEa+7mOEpoydNxuqF0mEo+ZCDDSbmpWlFiCUXkOKzaTnUM0zH0bbaU1lFPp8n2T UGOc8sl5tV+yAYWB0pN3kJZcvwdZZZdsxBvQkdNoZRrZxXx6FrBsI8L1Duz8WRSwT1kRsYtXZkmRg iXVxHCGg==;
Received: from cpe-172-114-237-88.socal.res.rr.com ([172.114.237.88]:57477 helo=smtpclient.apple) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1nDD4c-000uM7-0h; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 17:17:02 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_576A328A-CF14-468E-8A72-FF0BA25A77D5"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.40.0.1.81\))
From: "touch@strayalpha.com" <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAcc6vHjAk50MtNLFOKaFQuV-1e_L2U_-O4AX5bJW9=JUTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 14:16:54 -0800
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <691268A6-4609-4D94-87CE-7B4436B9982F@strayalpha.com>
References: <d6c6fec034a74e319cc9840ecb0f5603@boeing.com> <7cf11719-20f4-26ed-f332-18633c65491e@huitema.net> <CAC8QAcc6vHjAk50MtNLFOKaFQuV-1e_L2U_-O4AX5bJW9=JUTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: sarikaya@ieee.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.40.0.1.81)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/2FZsVd__NM1EBkYutLKPAcIEEnw>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] IP parcels
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area WG Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 22:17:09 -0000

FWIW, GRO/GSO give no end of headaches to the idea of new TCP options, esp. the current ones to extend option space after the SYN (draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-edo).

Although I appreciate their zeal for optimization, implementers of GRO/GSO still need to play by the rules of TCP and UDP. It’s not clear they are (e.g., coalescing packets with different unknown options), and when they don’t, I want to be clear that it is they that are the problem.

I agree that the common Unix socket interface has performance flaws, but perhaps it’s that interface that needs to evolve.

Joe

—
Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com

> On Jan 27, 2022, at 1:29 PM, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> Thanks Christian for explaining how GSO/GRO are used by Quic implementations. So the use is not mandated in Quic RFCs but rather used in implementations.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email