IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Thu, 09 May 2019 05:02 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@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 78EAD120267 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 22:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.499 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, 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 vqzoD4z69s4L for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 22:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x335.google.com (mail-ot1-x335.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::335]) (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 A929B120189 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2019 22:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x335.google.com with SMTP id l17so1136129otq.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 May 2019 22:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Du+p7HnOw/CGoo6Lzu3Dss+rz5x44T1BbDTO3gXWYoU=; b=GH5TswSTbkZBk8glyhZsg0gCg9BH5aryQQxtA261sv6nsQjit3a8DH7yKjvO7nvyse KlCWxgxHfGy+N0QRGjaOYakygSIMw+2G2aNXrXTUPaqR+C+t3JHbEM50J/30dV2uyS8b 8/uLnpp2TcoUv+QwCC63nfLjKeIDVUI70Fqra2X8bnsAOf8MiGNwpV0uZRB+jt1/1C1/ c99pofWOFb/fv4omyFWgvQl6Q1rO4KKx9R+jsDYMFT0HI6CaZtayHp/5qzCTLdBPp3MX tQU1dtaOup2kGjb3MA1j+Oeibo1lb+RUH9/yPHhzNgQomulC+oganaOqU+LerA6UTBen f6KQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Du+p7HnOw/CGoo6Lzu3Dss+rz5x44T1BbDTO3gXWYoU=; b=EfWPum1DhRdXIx9+kiG/zuUTxYNObEE1oPofcTY0ofqrlWl/OKIKqt9Pr3qVpO03Bs wcIkD4nu8VHk9INq25CPDVSGKIoqLl+NTGpLi9taazc1q8YaFrt9v3ve1d4531a799rJ aZG1RKBHpuEFXn4kELZqKSgbmYmcljYAnYYQ79doTgbwU+gTxsgiS6OsXrxfkuOvSRTE RfqMRVsmLr8viInU1M+aX79onzu8IH1TnfihvVqQfb6ae79EXnk26guHcRDWwaKam4/h XGaFrYg5Ajb0SK7Ke1myHGdBUsy1OPHYVodjB/m7gT5tShdULpdiHRzKTtzNO/cl2kWG IZrQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUaQO+W+PYoPm3NQ0BlRMKRYPmSv/PWLtLj5EBw8ScjpoEgXBbA 1yT3wMynZboTiqWas1XGZB7mutiN3h+rR9B36Xg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxeENv7+iLYieRfkNDw+PasdUu5Nq0kehUkxsX2MqOBLQ2Yjw1wPQ/9K8cpOUcOW4E4EkuRAnsLZ0jjwrviznM=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7443:: with SMTP id p3mr1131141otk.72.1557378145954; Wed, 08 May 2019 22:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <9416b1a0-46cc-2ba0-5e05-35096368db0d@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9416b1a0-46cc-2ba0-5e05-35096368db0d@gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 15:01:59 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2yj=H8WzCXf2Tm1nS4H=-2q1RfG1mhBSasLwdZDDeyrZw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [internet-drafts@ietf.org: New Version Notification for draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675-00.txt]
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: dwcarder@es.net, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/5ty3YTrcmbBASYSKcSDH_LmVJbE>
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 05:02:28 -0000

On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 14:00, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

I wonder if it could be useful for inter-VM or inter-container
communication via an emulated NIC that supports an MTU > 64K.

Regards,
Mark.

>     Brian
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email