IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> Wed, 08 May 2019 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.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 E7E8912013C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 11:30:15 -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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 osz0KwzyrHfw for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 11:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.sbone.de (mx1.sbone.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:13b:39f::9f:25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B5C6120025 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2019 11:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sbone.de (mail.sbone.de [IPv6:fde9:577b:c1a9:31::2013:587]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.sbone.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D34158D4A154; Wed, 8 May 2019 18:30:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from content-filter.sbone.de (content-filter.sbone.de [IPv6:fde9:577b:c1a9:31::2013:2742]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.sbone.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0EB9E70849; Wed, 8 May 2019 18:30:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sbone.de
Received: from mail.sbone.de ([IPv6:fde9:577b:c1a9:31::2013:587]) by content-filter.sbone.de (content-filter.sbone.de [fde9:577b:c1a9:31::2013:2742]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a6FFyO87mV_o; Wed, 8 May 2019 18:30:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.2.110] (unknown [IPv6:fde9:577b:c1a9:31:2ef0:eeff:fe03:ee34]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.sbone.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 841AAE707E8; Wed, 8 May 2019 18:30:08 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [internet-drafts@ietf.org: New Version Notification for draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675-00.txt]
Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 18:30:07 +0000
X-Mailer: MailMate (2.0BETAr6135)
Message-ID: <95C26ABF-FE62-4F43-8C47-D483D90F86A5@lists.zabbadoz.net>
In-Reply-To: <B6A0FA6B-F59B-4F5E-90A8-6B6500425469@gmail.com>
References: <20190508125743.GA19360@tom-desk.erg.abdn.ac.uk> <19A018DE-280E-4400-95AC-7A3697ABE4B8@employees.org> <B6A0FA6B-F59B-4F5E-90A8-6B6500425469@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/POO2J1ABXNWvY8zZ2QUw_luzhbk>
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: Wed, 08 May 2019 18:30:16 -0000

On 8 May 2019, at 17:26, Bob Hinden wrote:

> 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?

On a standardised interface/protocol (*) or just capable to?

I seem to remember that at least Altera’s 40/100G Ethernet MAC/PHY 
Core had no frame size limits in cut-through mode.  So I’d assume that 
off-the-shelf FPGA hardware might be able to generate (and receive) such 
packets.  Maybe someone more knowledgeable in that are could confirm 
this?


> As a co-author of RFC2675, I am OK with making it historic.   It was 
> very limited in use when first defined, and hasn’t gotten better.

Can RFCs be resurrected from historic to “alive”?


/bz


(*) That said, large jumboframes never were IEEE standardised, right?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email