IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Taps] draft-fairhurst-taps-transports-usage-udp-01

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Mon, 04 April 2016 22:42 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 48DF012D8A6 for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 15:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 7t_dxnTNjdko for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 15:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) (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 024A412D8B9 for <taps@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 15:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.184.182] ([128.9.184.182]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u34MfLBT006583 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 4 Apr 2016 15:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
References: <CAD62q9XZ7qSVghN+LzDcQZXttQRZ+aqJ9h5F-xZQLipCs6RQMg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-fNgbnKZsUEsWmxKrnOqbYU1KU=QQ=R9ojxxiECtR5vsw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD62q9Xe1r9NeFdmpjkPjfoC+eB+rmhxex1M1OpmhsNtEoQX3w@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-f3CiDz0-YBa-TBTV9h4srr3rdo+E2CSuxXQE5OAGUzjw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD62q9WXntMMHAk7oFQ_ua7joEZAB84WdZZoNF37d0SVnrHRmg@mail.gmail.com> <5EEA6A8D-7EFA-4946-AB1A-EF876BC97332@ifi.uio.no> <de01e8d4027bcbaa94101be763d10386.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <5702A813.90908@isi.edu> <7235c7e80b8eaf8823e244fb762a5801.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <5702AD1F.6080303@isi.edu> <7daecb443d1b93875027c4d945c594df.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <5702B2C8.5030005@isi.edu> <78b2e990fa6a83f886c59dd56c178b9e.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <5702CD91.9070101@isi.edu> <dd0c910bafd6e61fd33cc3f909eaa437.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <5702ED91.3050000@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 15:41:21 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <dd0c910bafd6e61fd33cc3f909eaa437.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MailScanner-ID: u34MfLBT006583
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/yxrk_BXiChkQgVW3qAGH4LZP-VA>
Cc: Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com>, "taps@ietf.org" <taps@ietf.org>, Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>, touch@isi.edu
Subject: Re: [Taps] draft-fairhurst-taps-transports-usage-udp-01
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: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 22:42:09 -0000


On 4/4/2016 3:31 PM, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
>> My point is that - at the abstract level - UDP should not have an API
>> > that talks about DSCP, ECN, or TTL - that ought to be something opaque
>> > that UDP hands down underneath.
>> >
> And does this particular list of things vary between IPv4 or IPv6? - I
> suggest not really, apart from different naming of the TTL to HOP_COUNT?

IPv6 has a flow label.

They support different options, including:
	IPv6 doesn't add an ID field unless fragmentation occurs.
	IPv6 allows jumbograms.

Regardless, these are IP issues, though - they should be transparent at
the UDP API (though the UDP API could support passing this info opaquely
along in either direction).

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email