Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipid-ext-00.txt
"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Tue, 12 December 2023 17:51 UTC
Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 81CE5C14F747 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:51:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=boeing.com header.b="LsOeqMob"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=boeing.onmicrosoft.com header.b="IzaoPhLe"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bu5R-ijxQjtR for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:51:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ewa-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (ewa-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.20.194]) (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 48EDEC14CF05 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:51:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ewa-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 3BCHpjCT038068; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:51:47 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=boeing.com; s=boeing-s1912; t=1702403507; bh=wJmUvwWOogPYN6/cw9BMkc2ySphAMfqQ4c3f0CHG+IY=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=LsOeqMobScdyuv6IuGBMIDNUl+2rCWtYklWgwSqNEI7/sTxZoXeTqsFwF68LY4ECk ITK4ZLBfX4N8cCN7lvmSU7id/f4BdJWt3Om1JrfgDlLCjMyALjhwJaZVtW6VFY3wxe mySGzirJKityF2qOd/zdWOSouiKTXN+c1BLXWMzOW7cfKf1ar2bEih4D2EiCFY8rui indkcrHfmiaONT6+WKYA2HCAUD1lrDsyKBfgRLXeULe9+hw4FtCfOet5/xCOvbJti5 tXYuPuzVFzzf0RLcPKj6Ephl5ogTlKA1F51xH2oRle+Y8928X6OYyKW/oNQ0ANCyk/ vUlPfg/aGK/wQ==
Received: from XCH16-02-04.nos.boeing.com (xch16-02-04.nos.boeing.com [137.137.111.7]) by ewa-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 3BCHpU8V037862 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:51:30 -0800
Received: from XCH16-03-06.nos.boeing.com (137.137.111.15) by XCH16-02-04.nos.boeing.com (137.137.111.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.34; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:51:28 -0800
Received: from XCH19-EDGE-Q01.nos.boeing.com (130.76.23.13) by XCH16-03-06.nos.boeing.com (137.137.111.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.34 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:51:28 -0800
Received: from USG02-CY1-obe.outbound.protection.office365.us (23.103.199.176) by boeing.com (130.76.23.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1258.27; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:51:16 -0800
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector5401; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=P77XVkFu/81yewAkC5Zv721XIdhIaSnKTFh/ghXTrQFKwX80qVfb4Tbu7r1H4p2/JfqC3e2wq/nTGAlsCIbxZ3tV0VYQ6K93D7yOmsa6oOJXDM789Y112xmeYYjb9NYXRZxh3AqXCQlSFHAzxrXallOOfxEoU6iVz+/gdUTm5wayQGj2C5QY8nACRPIEX9p1YHae660W5nhne8qXGUJalGToXoND+7bS0foZo30NkQP+PR2U5ifcUkCUbHb8wlb+K+4rrS3B42w75Zx60ZRDY4qsJ6fA6A96Dfy0N7leAHuvi9X4adLngKTtrC/OOSDLzEGCZCda1T35G341fH8KDw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector5401; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=wJmUvwWOogPYN6/cw9BMkc2ySphAMfqQ4c3f0CHG+IY=; b=ueVR7CmXV0S8oJpiOUQI44Bhzq5n10u4ZxkcoNlJXNHZqwNgkIExK6y1c4LHMeQbPIRhxK7/6RteVpeqsm99429KBjULRchcl6C9JilJ63XCngsBrEiq1ec2bFu/8aatntWEY1Kii/09Hoona0Gy3j8nGoA7ee8+d4E6ab0nUqQ5sbLsPiy0Vsyex4tI5ciJ3L0Ww0JrHaEU1Jm36S8tHmlVc2wG2n2KStzke/+9BChc2BCUkx85sJ+Jg9qDaR76o2JqZmiFUSkF0X9FFD5i6fvEMA2ek2eWpmmPxBfA2+VwSicLG+uVduoKu1yeRKXARmKF8jUFabOs52+6kBxDxw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=boeing.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=boeing.com; dkim=pass header.d=boeing.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=boeing.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-boeing-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=wJmUvwWOogPYN6/cw9BMkc2ySphAMfqQ4c3f0CHG+IY=; b=IzaoPhLePkHJuOVP4HTiCGFZ+a4IFG3fwCn6lNfHH1cNBsa9oBt8hDMsQIVzHXJLkrkST3jz44U+YdNCtJgyuZZ29SNCSzcj6e/HkwMMlY6+951fwZS6fp8rZ23LnNtBbxkI3Bxi2q5obWJDckh+sMP8y/xeiy0BjMD/DEO2uQo=
Received: from BN0P110MB1420.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2001:489a:200:183::19) by BN0P110MB1196.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2001:489a:200:183::16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.7002.40; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 17:51:14 +0000
Received: from BN0P110MB1420.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::5df2:a8d0:34f2:c244]) by BN0P110MB1420.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::5df2:a8d0:34f2:c244%5]) with mapi id 15.20.7002.040; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 17:51:14 +0000
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
CC: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipid-ext-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHaLSPM9dqGKMbHikW2//VsTBap5A==
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 17:51:14 +0000
Message-ID: <BN0P110MB14205A729D3DC0DC4E1A9E44A38EA@BN0P110MB1420.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <13091d25c5874d5ba27b2de77d337646@boeing.com> <CALx6S371iasRTW+gzjgCPT1BY-KxZZau2Fu3qGYnoHpiu3o9tQ@mail.gmail.com> <BN0P110MB14205F118B67DD0225A18634A38BA@BN0P110MB1420.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CALx6S36TZqh9h4aZ-o5gkY5Hp1Md2w5gPwpyO4weWeVwqXC5yQ@mail.gmail.com> <c0d3f33b-1193-470a-9f72-2c39dcbacb4f@huitema.net> <BN0P110MB1420A66D481B00EF33487E36A38AA@BN0P110MB1420.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CALx6S36KyazyS3d6GkkvTJr=s9SnA7WT_RJpEztLjmnrQNMrRQ@mail.gmail.com> <BN0P110MB1420BABB15276F252600F998A38AA@BN0P110MB1420.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <BN0P110MB142015F7908AF483AB8E5EF2A38FA@BN0P110MB1420.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CALx6S37oj0=A_==oJSHLVsc_k70RkTTJv4Cg--HnDOWKngWMjw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S37oj0=A_==oJSHLVsc_k70RkTTJv4Cg--HnDOWKngWMjw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=boeing.com;
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN0P110MB1420:EE_|BN0P110MB1196:EE_
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4e7c45f2-0be7-47c6-8970-08dbfb3aef36
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BN0P110MB1420.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(13230031)(366004)(230922051799003)(186009)(1800799012)(451199024)(66899024)(86362001)(30864003)(5660300002)(2906002)(33656002)(52536014)(38070700009)(71200400001)(122000001)(53546011)(6506007)(7696005)(55016003)(4326008)(66574015)(83380400001)(966005)(498600001)(8676002)(8936002)(76116006)(66446008)(66556008)(64756008)(9686003)(38100700002)(66946007)(54906003)(66476007)(6916009)(26005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: 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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BN0P110MB1420.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 4e7c45f2-0be7-47c6-8970-08dbfb3aef36
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 12 Dec 2023 17:51:14.3018 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bcf48bba-4d6f-4dee-a0d2-7df59cc36629
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN0P110MB1196
X-OriginatorOrg: boeing.com
X-TM-SNTS-SMTP: 2057669143BF5C7BA4A1641232EE5CA912E7AFABD5796442C6E7C17EC3A406FE2000:8
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/lUr1yiVrThiw219GrNtSPi9Zvhs>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipid-ext-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 17:51:54 -0000
Tom, thank you for these. I am currently pretty deep into a draft revision that addresses Christian's points and should also address several of your points. One question though: > I don't see how this can work if a Routing Header is present. If the > fragment option is in DestOpts before the Routing Header that implies > that each segment would need to do reassembly since only the > reassembled packet contains the Routing Header. It's actually worse > than that, because the first hop would reassemble the packet and then > try to forward the packet, but the reassembled packet is likely to > exceed the MTU so the packet can't be forwarded and the node can't > fragment the packet again because it's not the source of the packet. > Fragmentation really needs to be done after the Routing Header which > is the recommended ordering in RFC8200 for Frag header. No, the Routing Header would still be part of the Per-Fragment headers even though it appears sequentially after the Extended Fragment Header. The Fragmentable Part of the packet still begins after the Routing Header; not before. Perhaps some words along these lines in the draft would help clarify? Fred > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 9:31 AM > To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> > Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipid-ext-00.txt > > Hi Fred, > > Here are some comments on the latest draft. > > Both the abstract and introduction lead by discussing IPv4 > fragmentation. Should only be talking about IPv6 here. > > The definitions of "source" and "destination" are confusing and not > typical. Typically, a source host is the source of an IP packet and > identified by the source address, a destination host is the > destination of an IP packet and is addressed by the destination > address. In the presence of a routing header the "final destination" > is the last address in the route list. > > "router" is the common term for "intermediate systems". I suggest just > using "router" instead. > > "Upper layer protocols often achieve greater performance by > configuring segment sizes that exceed the path Maximum Transmission > Unit (MTU)." I am not at all convinced that this is true, especially > for TCP which has been optimized both in the protocol and > implementation for segment size to equal Path MTU. In any case, I > think this is unnecessary discussion in the draft-- the motivation for > increasing the size of the fragment identifier is that the identifier > is too small for high speed networks. Quantifying "too small" would be > good here: 16 bits in IPv4 is obviously a problem, but what are the > conditions for which 32 bits IPv6 identification is too small? > > "Index/P/S a control octet that identifies the components > of an IP Parcel [I-D.templin-intarea-parcels]" > > This creates a dependency on a much larger draft. I suggest just > reserve these bits and define them in IP parcels as an update to this > draft. > > "The Extended Fragment Header is included in a Per-Fragment > Destination Options Header following the Hop-by-Hop Options (if > present) but before the Routing Header (if present)" > > I don't see how this can work if a Routing Header is present. If the > fragment option is in DestOpts before the Routing Header that implies > that each segment would need to do reassembly since only the > reassembled packet contains the Routing Header. It's actually worse > than that, because the first hop would reassemble the packet and then > try to forward the packet, but the reassembled packet is likely to > exceed the MTU so the packet can't be forwarded and the node can't > fragment the packet again because it's not the source of the packet. > Fragmentation really needs to be done after the Routing Header which > is the recommended ordering in RFC8200 for Frag header. > > Congestion and packet loss management, fragment retransmission, > capabilities negotiation suggested by probing, and fragment > acknowledgments all fall under the auspices of the transport layer. If > we're introducing these in the network layer then I think there needs > to be more depth in the description and consideration of transport > layer requirements. > > As an example, consider the interaction with TCP slow start. When a > host starts sending to a destination is it allowed to immediately send > packets composed of 64 fragments? If it does that, the sender is > basically bypassing the Slow Start and isn't being very TCP friendly. > Even if fragmentation provides some performance benefit to the source > host in this case, it may be getting that benefit at the expense of > others. When we look at the performance of a protocol we really need > to consider the effects on the network as a whole, not just at the > endpoints of communication. > > Also, it's not clear to me what the application is for these transport > layer aspects. For instance, we know running two independent > congestion control loops for the same packet wreaks havoc on the upper > protocol which in this case is TCP (high variances, unnecessary > retransmission, etc.). I don't believe transport layer aspects of > fragmentation are useful with TCP or QUIC, do you have a use case in > mind for these? > > Tom > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 1:13 PM Templin (US), Fred L > <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote: > > > > Tom et al, there have been some significant changes to the draft that bring it more > > in line with both the comments on the list and some of my other writings. I think it > > may be worth another look now if you have time and energy. > > > > Thanks - Fred > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Templin (US), Fred L > > > Sent: Friday, December 08, 2023 11:01 AM > > > To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> > > > Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org> > > > Subject: Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipid-ext-00.txt > > > > > > Tom, the service backs off during periods of congestive loss and can resume a more > > > aggressive profile when congestion subsides - the service is therefore adaptive. And, > > > the service is verified to improve performance for TCP and generic UDP as shown in > > > the iperf3 graphs in my Intarea charts. In fact, TCP does best of all. > > > > > > Thank you - Fred > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> > > > > Sent: Friday, December 08, 2023 9:12 AM > > > > To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> > > > > Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org> > > > > Subject: Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipid-ext-00.txt > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 7:37 AM Templin (US), Fred L > > > > <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Christian, I am working with the DTN LTP over UDP transport, and what I have found is > > > > > the performance is increased only by increasing the segment size even if that size exceeds > > > > > the path MTU. I have shown performance increases with segment sizes all the way up to > > > > > 64KB even over 1500B path MTUs, and I believe that still larger segment sizes (over paths > > > > > with sufficient MTUs) would do even better. This was also a well-known characteristic of > > > > > NFS over UDP back in the early days, and I believe we will find other transports today that > > > > > would benefit from larger packets. > > > > > > > > > > I have tried many ways to apply the "conventional wisdom" you have expressed to LTP/UDP > > > > > but have seen no appreciable performance increases using those methods. I tried using > > > > > sendmmsg()/recvmmsg() and they did nothing to improve performance. I then implemented > > > > > GSO/GRO and again the performance increase if any was minimal. I even implemented a > > > > > first pass at IP parcels and sent 64KB parcels with ~1500B segments over an OMNI interface > > > > > and that did give some minor performance increase due to the reduction in header > > > > > overhead but nothing within the realm of simply sending larger packets where the > > > > > performance increases were multiplicative. > > > > > > > > > > I object to categorizing this as a transport issue - this is an Internetworking issue where > > > > > large packet sizes currently are not well supported especially when they exceed the path > > > > > MTU. I believe many transports will benefit from using larger packets, and that a robust > > > > > fragmentation and reassembly service is essential for performance maximization in the > > > > > Internet, and my drafts clearly explain why that is so. > > > > > > > > Fred, > > > > > > > > For transport protocols dealing with segments the interaction with > > > > fragmentation can't be ignored. Consider if there is a 1% packet loss > > > > in a path for a flow. If one segment equals one path MTU (no > > > > fragmentation), then 1% of segments are dropped, If one segment equals > > > > two MTUs with fragmentation then 2% of the segments are dropped, if > > > > one segment equals four MTUs then 4% are dropped, If one segment > > > > equals 32 MTUs then 32% of segments are dropped. Dropped segments need > > > > to be retransmitted and those retransmitted segments are subject to > > > > packet loss also so the goodput for the connection can quickly drop > > > > off a cliff when using fragmentation. As I mentioned this is > > > > exacerbated by the fact that the fragments themselves can be the > > > > source of congestion causing packet loss in the network. > > > > > > > > I think your argument that fragmentation is essential to the Internet > > > > would be stronger if you can show why packet loss isn't a big problem > > > > for transport protocols that use segments as the unit of congestion > > > > control and retransmission. Also, your focus for analysis seems to be > > > > on LTP, but if you want to make a general argument that fragmentation > > > > is essential for the whole Internet I suggest showing how TCP and QUIC > > > > behave when their segments are fragmented with varying amounts of > > > > packet loss in the path. > > > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2023 3:59 PM > > > > > > To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>; Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> > > > > > > Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipid-ext-00.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/7/2023 11:51 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 7:58 AM Templin (US), Fred L > > > > > > > <Fred.L.Templin=40boeing.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > > > > >> Tom, to the point on performance: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> Please provide references to these studies. Also, note IP > > > > > > >>> fragmentation is only one possibility, PMTUD and transport layer > > > > > > >>> segmentation is another and that latter seems more prevalent. > > > > > > >> If by transport layer segmentation you mean GSO/GRO, it is not the same thing > > > > > > >> as IP fragmentation at all. GSO/GRO provide a means for the application of the > > > > > > >> source to transfer a block of data containing multiple MTU- or smaller-sized > > > > > > >> segments to the kernel in a single system call, then the kernel breaks the > > > > > > >> segments out into individual packets that are all no larger than the path MTU > > > > > > >> and sends them to the destination. The destination kernel then gathers them > > > > > > >> up and posts them to the local application in a reassembled buffer possibly > > > > > > >> as large as that used by the original source. But, if some packets are lost, > > > > > > >> the destination kernel instead sends up what it has gathered so far which > > > > > > >> may be less than the block used by the original source. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> IP fragmentation is very different and operates on a single large transport > > > > > > >> layer segment instead of multiple smaller ones. And, the studies I am referring > > > > > > >> to show that performance was most positively affected by increasing the > > > > > > >> segment size even to larger than the path MTU. I implemented GSO/GRO > > > > > > >> in the ion-dtn LTP/UDP implementation and noted that the performance > > > > > > >> increase I saw was very minor and related to more efficient packaging > > > > > > >> and not a system call bottleneck. Conversely, when I increased the segment > > > > > > >> sizes to larger than the path MTU and intentionally invoked IP fragmentation > > > > > > >> the performance increase was dramatic. You can see this in the charts I > > > > > > >> showed at IETF118 intarea here: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/118/materials/slides-118-intarea-identification-extension-for-the-internet-protocol-00 > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't doubt your experience, but this is not what we saw with QUIC. In > > > > > > the early stages of QUIC development, the performance were gated by the > > > > > > cost of the UDP socket API. I have benchmarks showing that sendmsg was > > > > > > accounting for 70 to 80% of CPU on sender side. Using GSO was key to > > > > > > lowering that, with one single call to sendmsg for 64K worth of data. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Again, GSO/GRO address performance limitations of the application/kernel > > > > > > >> system call interface which seems to have a positive performance effect for > > > > > > >> some applications. But, IP fragmentation addresses a performance limitation > > > > > > >> of transport layer protocols in allowing the transport protocol to use larger > > > > > > >> segment sizes and therefore have fewer segments to deal with. > > > > > > > > > > > > At the cost of very inefficient error correction, repeating 64K bytes if > > > > > > 1500 bytes are lost. The processing cost of retransmissions with > > > > > > selective acknowledgement is not large, it hardly shows in the flame > > > > > > graphs. Also, the next more important cost after sendmsg/recvmsg is the > > > > > > cost of encryption. If the application had to resend 64KB, it also has > > > > > > to encrypt 64KB again, and that costs more than re-encrypting 1500B. > > > > > > Given that, I am not sure that for QUIC we would see a lower CPU by > > > > > > delegating fragmentation to the IP stack. > > > > > > > > > > > > That does not mean that larger packets would not result in lower CPU > > > > > > load. It would, but only if the larger packet size did not involve > > > > > > fragmentation, reassembly, and the overhead caused by the occasional > > > > > > loss of a fragment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Fred, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fewer segments, but NOT fewer packets. The net amount of work in the > > > > > > > system is unchanged when sending larger segments instead of smaller so > > > > > > > there won't be any material performance differences other than maybe > > > > > > > implementation effects at the host and no effect at routers. Segments > > > > > > > are the unit of congestion management and retransmission in a > > > > > > > transport protocol, but fragments are transparent to the transport > > > > > > > protocol-- this distinction can cause material issues in performance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's pretty easy to see why this is. Consider that the minimum number > > > > > > > of segments for a connection would be to use 64K segments and fragment > > > > > > > them. For a 1500 MTU one segment then would be sent in 43 fragments. > > > > > > > The problem is that if just one fragment is dropped in a segment then > > > > > > > the whole segment is retransmitted. Furthermore, the fragments > > > > > > > themselves are likely to be the cause of the congestion at routers. So > > > > > > > there is a high likelihood of creating congestion in the network and > > > > > > > needing a lot of retransmissions. Even if CWND goes to one, each > > > > > > > connection can still send 43 packets and SACKs don't help because > > > > > > > there's no granularity at 64K segments so congestion control really > > > > > > > wouldn't be effective. The net effect is likely to be very poor TCP > > > > > > > performance. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. That's actually a known issue with GSO, and why GSO is typically > > > > > > limited to no more than 64K. If the sender does not implement some form > > > > > > of pacing, the segments will be sent back to back, causing short peaks > > > > > > of traffic that can cause queues to fill up and overflow. But it is > > > > > > difficult to delegate this pacing to the kernel, because the API only > > > > > > expresses the pacing in "milliseconds between packets". Segmentation in > > > > > > the kernel or the drivers would have the same issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > While I think there might be some incidental positive performance > > > > > > > effects in host implementation by using fragmentation, I really don't > > > > > > > see how it addresses any fundamental performance limitation in a > > > > > > > transport layer protocol like TCP. In fact, I don't see how IP > > > > > > > fragmentation could possibly be better than doing PMTUD with SACKs > > > > > > > especially on the Internet. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet another issue is that Fred is not the only one with that particular > > > > > > bad idea. The UDP options defined in TSVWG include a > > > > > > sgementation/fragmentation option that looks very similar. The two bad > > > > > > ideas would probably have to be reconciled in a single bad idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > In any case, Fred is making arguments related to transport, which means > > > > > > this draft ought to be discussed in TSVWG. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Christian Huitema > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > > ipv6@ietf.org > > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
- [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipid-ex… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Christian Huitema
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Mark Smith
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Christian Huitema
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] [EXTERNAL] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-t… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [IPv6] [EXTERNAL] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-t… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Christian Huitema
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] [EXTERNAL] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-t… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Christian Huitema
- Re: [IPv6] [EXTERNAL] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-t… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [IPv6] [EXTERNAL] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-t… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] [EXTERNAL] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-t… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Tom Herbert
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [IPv6] [EXTERNAL] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-t… Christian Huitema
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [IPv6] FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-ipi… Tom Herbert
- [IPv6] IPv6 Parcels and Advanced Jumbos (AJs) Templin (US), Fred L