IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 09 May 2019 06:31 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@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 ABFAA12008C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 23:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 wHXSKOdMLO9D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 23:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31335120278 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2019 23:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x496VKoK034437 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2019 08:31:20 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 71B0B201ED9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2019 08:31:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66646201ED3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2019 08:31:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x496VKcm029422 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2019 08:31:20 +0200
Subject: Re: [internet-drafts@ietf.org: New Version Notification for draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675-00.txt]
To: ipv6@ietf.org
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>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7ca94eb5-f41e-1d86-0c20-f2526b880396@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 08:31:19 +0200
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: <9416b1a0-46cc-2ba0-5e05-35096368db0d@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/cqlXKRKpPQW8eBV8gTA1SB2QVrw>
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 06:31:28 -0000


Le 09/05/2019 à 06:00, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
> 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.

I could try to ping -s our CERN or Lyon interconnect, if my contact 
provides an address.

Alex

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