Re: [Rtg-dt-encap-considerations] Updated draft

Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net> Sat, 07 March 2015 04:50 UTC

Return-Path: <nordmark@sonic.net>
X-Original-To: rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AB0A1A89A2 for <rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 K-oPZtbh2A61 for <rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.50]) (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 2CCE71A89A3 for <Rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.54] (70-36-183-173.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [70.36.183.173]) (authenticated bits=0) by d.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id t274nwKt024653 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50:02 -0800
Message-ID: <54FA8375.4010809@sonic.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 20:49:57 -0800
From: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Albert Tian <albert.tian@ericsson.com>, "rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org" <Rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org>
References: <54FA4EC2.3030706@sonic.net> <D11F90C2.36C810%Albert.Tian@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <D11F90C2.36C810%Albert.Tian@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVbAd96mlqiynbd8DCys88JPg7bNrRYwuLmUFwpEsV7h9Z+MwFngZItWrHUWxjz/430rW1s06lNB64yTVUAtENSr
X-Sonic-ID: C;XiwoaIXE5BGlJ75YxQPdhw== M;6KlLaoXE5BGlJ75YxQPdhw==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dt-encap-considerations/ZF9FpYhbkUy997QTl21PY3kI87I>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-dt-encap-considerations] Updated draft
X-BeenThere: rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Design Team on Encapsulation Considerations discussion list <rtg-dt-encap-considerations.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dt-encap-considerations>, <mailto:rtg-dt-encap-considerations-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dt-encap-considerations/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dt-encap-considerations-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dt-encap-considerations>, <mailto:rtg-dt-encap-considerations-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 04:50:12 -0000

On 3/6/15 5:15 PM, Albert Tian wrote:
> o  Keep the encap header small. Switches and routers usually only read the
> first small number of bytes into the fast memory for quick processing and
> easy manipulation. The bulk of the packets are usually stored in slow
> memory. A big encap header may not fit and additional read from the slow
> memory will hurt the overall performance and throughput.
>
>     o  Putting important information at the beginning of the
>        encapsulation header. The reasoning is similar as explained in the
> previous point. If important information are
>        located at the beginning of the encapsulation header, the packet
>        may be processed with smaller number of bytes to be read into the
> fast memory and improve performance.
I've replaced the two bullets with the above. Minor edit s/Putting/Put/ 
in the second bullet seems more correct.

Thanks,
    Erik