IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PMTUD (#64)

martinduke <notifications@github.com> Tue, 03 January 2017 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A19041296D0 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:11:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
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 YkhJehvlGZwv for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:11:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from o9.sgmail.github.com (o9.sgmail.github.com [167.89.101.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D394129A73 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:11:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=WrrSAqplgOuE3Nvkfctexue0KvY=; b=Xr5CH1E8+yGG5JKT XN23RfheaFZFMkOgbsrgjZfnyKM/f6Qb0HUs5mAPaz2XvVIdMDngb2AQrumqey8n ThVz7NtX9i9eQUQRuRHyvnBBXwkfEPXBBeuesxdkdgp4lOQnlyG0XNT0G/KgM4Cg nx/NFdKKEQyzpLKedCNXROQyafo=
Received: by filter0648p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0648p1mdw1-8740-586BE94E-C 2017-01-03 18:11:26.261856438 +0000 UTC
Received: from github-smtp2a-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2a-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net [192.30.253.16]) by ismtpd0002p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id 8w--rd_iTJy60bmLvP3jiA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Jan 2017 18:11:26.219 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 10:11:26 -0800
From: martinduke <notifications@github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/64/270181742@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/64@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/64@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PMTUD (#64)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_586be94e21b02_128d73fc76448913874394e"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinduke
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak2nxe5AC963QKKkdT6O1G5rsADZV5JnXANk1X x8NnKKIxQwPPLQ6L7vPaAAJ0X591+9/F/2zlLySepm52rT3FTqlrIq6Wi/1wQSJyUWrT0Rp/xW/eue 7+FzBrrYjFq1OA+xYIPMGY2Im/zQE9eWny5z9aWRC+I7OYllMZShk9xaI0kSfQGWjc4XhxuvGqYhBH k=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/tYXp8jCPgJ9U6vMFOfoQxZWoPuE>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Reply-To: quic@ietf.org
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 18:11:29 -0000

> given ian's experience of 90% effectiveness in comment in #64 (comment) I would be wary of introducing ICMP into this at all.

'90% effectiveness' means we're leaving about 150 bytes per datagram on the table.  It would be fine to have a protocol that didn't packetize data all that efficiently in the name of simplicity, but if that is the goal then we should absolutely get rid of the many variable-length header fields, which introduce a ton of complexity for less than 100 bytes of savings in most cases.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/64#issuecomment-270181742

v2.34.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status