IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tom Jones <tom@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Thu, 09 May 2019 06:29 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
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 BCE2E1201A2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 23:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 D-qe3e66qGtg for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 23:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:42:150::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7294F120269 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2019 23:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from auth1-smtp.messagingengine.com (auth1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.227]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCC001B00191; Thu, 9 May 2019 07:29:28 +0100 (BST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailauth.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43B0D26504; Thu, 9 May 2019 02:29:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 09 May 2019 02:29:26 -0400
X-ME-Sender: <xms:xcjTXOmYf8L9Dih_kIfEuK10xsp-S3HAxEAYeR0s8EsBF0GfD6-vAw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrkeeggddutdejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjfgesthdtredttdervdenucfhrhhomhepvfhomhcu lfhonhgvshcuoehtohhmsegvrhhgrdgrsggunhdrrggtrdhukheqnecukfhppedufeelrd ehledrudehgedrgeefnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehsohhmvgdomhgvshhm thhprghuthhhphgvrhhsohhnrghlihhthidqgeehgeehtddujedtqdduheehgedvgeehke dqthhomheppegvrhhgrdgrsggunhdrrggtrdhukhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdgtohhmnecu vehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:xcjTXP7QzsqA17F0vMkCkJF_4uZX-eAt7rlneqJvYCnlry-7ebSz7g> <xmx:xcjTXMiL1YtFluK96nO-GuaxOLhhO-BQzCwiIFgXKPa55WBticJNLA> <xmx:xcjTXEEvS0BoCrd5hWQkXlNQnDviYT-egqc09JgGAWqE6ulkh4S49Q> <xmx:xsjTXBuSwLngcW3ULBvuMceLvNAMXlY9pQRi4Wt9J7jtrdlo10enYg>
Received: from profitmargin (unknown [139.59.154.43]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 36445103CB; Thu, 9 May 2019 02:29:25 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 06:29:23 +0000
From: Tom Jones <tom@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [internet-drafts@ietf.org: New Version Notification for draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675-00.txt]
Message-ID: <20190509062922.GA39281@profitmargin>
References: <20190508125743.GA19360@tom-desk.erg.abdn.ac.uk> <19A018DE-280E-4400-95AC-7A3697ABE4B8@employees.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <19A018DE-280E-4400-95AC-7A3697ABE4B8@employees.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/KXzvp5ZAKbwxU_CZnidQ1EBGO0o>
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 06:29:47 -0000

On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 06:07:51PM +0200, Ole Troan 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?
> 
> I don't expect any implementation supporting it unless they also support data-link layers with an MTU > 64K.
> Or is that the problem you are trying to solve, that a TCP implementation must handle datagrams larger than 64K?
> Is there any other solution?

I came to this from as an operating system maintainer, removing
Jumbograms is a one time ~350 line diff and it saves us maintaining
complexity in our v6 stack. 

Preparing this draft it is clear to me that Jumbograms are being carried
forward in the RFC series 'just because'. Most of the time they are an
off hand mention, in some cases there are changes to protocol formats to
handle the protocol. 

This seems like a lot of work for a protocol with no known deployments
on the Internet. 

- Tom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email