IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Dale W. Carder" <dwcarder@es.net> Thu, 09 May 2019 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <dwcarder@es.net>
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 A2B7F1200FC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2019 13:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=es.net
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 CFcYkL4CsG-r for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2019 13:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fe3.lbl.gov (fe3.lbl.gov [131.243.228.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA4E312006B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2019 13:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Ironport-SBRS: 2.7
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2ECAACDh9Rcf0WmVdFkGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBAYE8gg5ajC1fihaCDYk/jxSBewkBAQEBAQEBAQEGAQEvAQEChD4CggkjNAkOAQMBAQUBAQEBBAEBAhABAQkLCwgbDCUMQgEQAYFmKQEUTWsBAQEBAQEjAkQsAQEBAwE6BgEBNQIBBAsLGAkaCw8FDRMBBQEiCgkUhHkDDg8BBKFaPIosgiCCeQEBBYUDDYIaCQkBCIEgAYRkhU2BDg8RBoF/gRGDEj6CGkcFhRqCJpNVkzs5BwICggmPAINIJ4wNiUwag1KQVIxcAgQCBAUCBg8hgS6CEHsKgyeCDwwXFBiHeYYYITMBhnOJCwEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,450,1549958400"; d="scan'208";a="154017865"
Received: from mail-io1-f69.google.com ([209.85.166.69]) by fe3.lbl.gov with ESMTP; 09 May 2019 13:08:38 -0700
Received: by mail-io1-f69.google.com with SMTP id i21so2551667iog.9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 May 2019 13:08:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=es.net; s=esnet-google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=dl0tQRK7i1VfWD6XI0xrcQCqbAshKFPINuzieG7uZ1A=; b=erL50uaJE3hiZqnF3UChPoJGZ0kTD5yxONqUsgzTi51LTz7Q4w+4M7xEPV5rDtr/zx chf0O50U0yWZDXighqT+uuF9YTkQq8cZbI3A1MhYpReQ1eI/sA5Rd02698juegN36CLO Xkn98/i7lxjFMGpGtFYQlavkt9N7TjjIIChvlRdvnH+aSbvHuIS38yu8p9svWefqAj6P tQt489Qui95ov6Lv7HasJQk4b1DCDWNQHgXgmi88YeiW82SlxjWpfgQbqkjpb8gPLFC3 2PDWrQVzQFqhbPwqptNbR/sWNfIPNrUZ3xtCTeAltOyr9+swrYzIaQooDUEboJk5LeNU Wp+g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=dl0tQRK7i1VfWD6XI0xrcQCqbAshKFPINuzieG7uZ1A=; b=ObXWNZQyt6l/KqTctKfYhXVfPHw2eKkSzNHM8B6Da67k+vxgoMlpG4rakkMSTuZVwT V6AC3bgOAp2+cf1rlkIB5tyVDLn1mVVLreXkXdQuscTBkD6h7lK5wc4uKH3lsQ4NOHN4 mrB9Z12sPj8XcdWoy3UDM6DZLCy60hgblHZVlaTYK6gHMOT79JJteXUyfyVUDExSkG2F HqJ4Bh5JTlWglml42TT6l0ftoJq23Y/38NrCU6pr6I0416dfUwlDiQTxGC8PpSwpsgll lP6JIeLAUif4rOQkpoZ9yB7WJJyA7RFWpVLp+U7TxbRvm5VHZcratqn62oZya+AlRcGN pB6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWpfyC+4axoyrlf/jDnWUBToptMy4dWnMkISYoe2uwD44qyfgZa RDw3XlhqwpEP/RJ8JjAn5HQne29nxO4BlkB98/ak7y91Gr/0kxFq+yx6Fc0q7ZBLh9w3Ag8GRnA dphWp8tv2
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:ea02:: with SMTP id m2mr3666720ioc.270.1557432517782; Thu, 09 May 2019 13:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzeUqNy8RtQQtZkbkp6UYQie5PY+nm0zmQ+r3C92z7wCNmZX+NtLlG1yfHiJTzMdszHQPr+7g==
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:ea02:: with SMTP id m2mr3666697ioc.270.1557432517442; Thu, 09 May 2019 13:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (2600-6c44-5f7f-e601-4910-ce02-2911-efcd.dhcp6.chtrptr.net. [2600:6c44:5f7f:e601:4910:ce02:2911:efcd]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y190sm1311028itc.4.2019.05.09.13.08.36 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 09 May 2019 13:08:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 15:08:35 -0500
From: "Dale W. Carder" <dwcarder@es.net>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [internet-drafts@ietf.org: New Version Notification for draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675-00.txt]
Message-ID: <20190509200835.GF11826@dwc-desktop.local>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9416b1a0-46cc-2ba0-5e05-35096368db0d@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/GGYWpivTaD0734rfCqFWBshAkUM>
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 20:08:42 -0000

Thus spake Brian E Carpenter (brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com) on Thu, May 09, 2019 at 04:00:09PM +1200:
> 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.

My interpretation of the linux implementation of IPOIB is that it's
currently capped at 64K due to that implementation's IPv4 compatibility.

I also agree that implementation is optional as you pointed from the abstract 
text of RFC2675.

> As noted earlier, there certainly seems to be no reason that general-purpose transport protocols
would need to consider jumbograms. 

Yes, I certainly could agree that we can ease restrictions on the transport 
layer, but I don't think that has to come at the expense of removing the
possibility for new transport protocols that could take advantage of
jumbograms later.

Dale

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email