IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [internet-drafts@ietf.org: New Version Notification for draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675-00.txt]

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 09 May 2019 04:00 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94E6012025B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 21:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 vwaOHXQOa9PN for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 21:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x431.google.com (mail-pf1-x431.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::431]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35A7612024D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2019 21:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x431.google.com with SMTP id u17so558969pfn.7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 May 2019 21:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:cc:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VO37Ao2bVK9HIla00bT//Scjjwjw4Iyd9kQ84KqQ9/A=; b=CgegD+T8pDPukrqaZLANlEUSv68cgPXr7oWAr8GWAVJGpgsvecvFYZi/bKmf8WQL+Y rsUc9juM4/FPLHKWFJg0++9tKmbMTq2XY7IHtBBXok0bwHD5FxF+luABwKhIBIDaY3sR A4jtwNkA67EHmd7Lj5LnnoFnHUUimPvAuGvfJIqOFOyJ6fum3IaXIawDEIotuFoIXQBE QHnmymxJ+0Ro7rSsbsy0l5Ooh8fCxww2o+DaGsitdIXZEAj9wXFcND8w84Zt/GHEjk7x /m2mqd9TTJlBuCJWm9rJL/q1jQIjIDhLVYqpifqogTG+4zTUuZyLYvUUSbfyaR7MK3I7 s4IQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:cc:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=VO37Ao2bVK9HIla00bT//Scjjwjw4Iyd9kQ84KqQ9/A=; b=XqXN3jA3NOqYieNGLh9rwBYW0h/OUhZdXDuacrWPEtRoGpp33RRwcm+ahuWHMtdUHE 7hVmyPV2uKfYuUgPRaQSmYQZPZs7M0CoDZFv2EENSrAI+wlFMvf1EUAnFCYom878Qsb9 qFzgY1gC/UELsuQarOULM4AR3JCfaRTTglfxCbAyY1+N/dXqfCM0FL3WM9CequWFCc2S 8+KRWqIbF+PR54VWffmkxiNXTH4GU5sWPUAXI01yJFiScVdP2Rl07+iL6ibDhoO2gAfP 2jNzOcK2dvirZGNlOLrtqfLF/pSgO+yWFvO4X49OVhebixQrswcZOcFI/cQL5OMFuTaV 9lfA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXuJsDktrxYnG2zcWxFZHMp+ThDExre5CT2VS0m1A62urW3gOn6 pJQot3wITUZ7rMAu2h/JCoKH4YYF
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxnGZe73pT5lLFWhUefH7XlHkdbWsJhXQ4PQ315iFO9FXCZSOuOAqpD6uYnxOIuo+sVZYxMTA==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:b507:: with SMTP id y7mr2641149pge.237.1557374414066; Wed, 08 May 2019 21:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([118.148.72.205]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e193sm805325pgc.53.2019.05.08.21.00.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 May 2019 21:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [internet-drafts@ietf.org: New Version Notification for draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675-00.txt]
To: dwcarder@es.net
References: <20190508125743.GA19360@tom-desk.erg.abdn.ac.uk> <19A018DE-280E-4400-95AC-7A3697ABE4B8@employees.org> <B6A0FA6B-F59B-4F5E-90A8-6B6500425469@gmail.com> <20190509031547.GE11826@dwc-desktop.local>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Message-ID: <9416b1a0-46cc-2ba0-5e05-35096368db0d@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 16:00:09 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190509031547.GE11826@dwc-desktop.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/4yAH1OtmgnB0UEU30XDwVH6F13c>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 04:00:17 -0000

On 09-May-19 15:15, Dale W. Carder wrote:
> Thus spake Bob Hinden (bob.hinden@gmail.com) on Wed, May 08, 2019 at 10:26:48AM -0700:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> On May 8, 2019, at 9:07 AM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello 6man,
>>>>
>>>> We have put this together to change the status of RFC2675 to Historic
>>>> and would like to request discussion in the working group.
>>>
>>> IPv6 jumbograms was intended for some super computer inter connect with a massive MTU.
>>> I don't know of any use of it, but is it harmful if the specification is left there in place?
>>>
>>
>> Are there any current network interfaces that can support packets larger than 65,535 octets?   As I remember, it was intended for network interfaces like hyperchannel that could support packets larger than 65,535.    Did we every define an IPv6 over Hyperchannel specification?
> 
> RFC4755 points out that infiniband's connected mode can do 2^31.  (IIRC,
> the "fragmentation" is done at a lower hardware layer)

Right, after HIPPI came Infiniband and Fibre Channel, and there was supposed to be SCI (scalable coherent interconnect), but I believe that was a market failure. The point is that the HPC community is interested in jumbo transfers within one building or one rack.

> If not causing active harm, I would think deprecating IPv6 jumbograms would 
> be quite premature.

Agreed, but evidence of actual deployment and usage seems to be very hard to find. As noted earlier, there certainly seems to be no reason that general-purpose transport protocols would need to consider jumbograms.

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email