Re: [Taps] MTU / equivalent at the transport layer

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Fri, 09 December 2016 20:23 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9414D129552 for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 12:23:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.796
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896] 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 KUZUA0cC8Oeg for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 12:23:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) (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 EA2991293E1 for <taps@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 12:23:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.9.184.112] ([128.9.184.112]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id uB9KN4MP015791 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 9 Dec 2016 12:23:05 -0800 (PST)
To: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
References: <5F2E34E4-7D32-4BDB-B762-2ADB7994672B@ifi.uio.no> <477E5339-173E-4483-913B-F7213AA9444B@lurchi.franken.de>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <e01aeb13-6cc5-c8b0-9fca-59afb1e5f4db@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 12:23:03 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <477E5339-173E-4483-913B-F7213AA9444B@lurchi.franken.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/eMxQHFlO7UKljMK_AXZGqGqjZjo>
Cc: taps WG <taps@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Taps] MTU / equivalent at the transport layer
X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Transport Services <taps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/taps>, <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/taps/>
List-Post: <mailto:taps@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps>, <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 20:23:52 -0000


On 12/9/2016 12:14 PM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
>> On 7 Dec 2016, at 15:54, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have a problem with one particular primitive, or lack of it, in UDP, UDP-Lite and SCTP. It's something I just don't get.
>>
>> Consider this text from draft-fairhurst-taps-transports-usage-udp:
>>
>> "GET_INTERFACE_MTU:  The GET_INTERFACE_MTU function a network-layer
>>      function that indicates the largest unfragmented IP packet that
>>      may be sent."
>>
>> Indeed, this is a network-layer function. It's about the interface, not about UDP. Does that mean that, to decide how many bytes fit in the payload of a packet, the programmer needs to know if it's IPv4 or IPv6, with or without options, and do the calculation?
>> If so, isn't it extremely odd that UDP doesn't offer a primitive that provides a more useful number: the available space in its payload, in bytes?
>>
>> I also have the same question for SCTP.  For TCP, it's obvious that the application shouldn't bother, but not for UDP or SCTP.
> In the API description in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6458 the MTU exposed to the application
> via the API is "the number of bytes available in an SCTP packet for chunks." I think this is the best
> we can do at that interface...
AFAICT, that's 1) in my list, e.g., the largest chunk that SCTP can send
without having SCTP coordinate frag/reassembly. That doesn't itself
indicate whether it's SCTP doing the rest or the network layer.

Joe