[tcpm] 793bis: IPv6 jumbograms

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Thu, 19 December 2019 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 486301200E3 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:26:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 BubkyNKBtb-5 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:26:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x831.google.com (mail-qt1-x831.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::831]) (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 D29531200A4 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:26:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x831.google.com with SMTP id j5so5505266qtq.9 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:26:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=qYeZ6d7dzbnK8EFI3TH11bkRNWDPjBxWrfQjO/kh7/U=; b=kWf75RF9pu6e5FRZKLvhiRQ1JqfL68+h6oTaxpreC0wjVby8dCUhSxfPQE9ldycrCg 1dLFPqyaQUgVsCVetqlwZdUk4hXhrcZzN7Hl2x4u00BPgWXbwg7XBudOIHQwcRtyTRMw VWq8BOn8h92d8PNh9axC2dnXGM13E7Joym0vzbZn0kLzEqLFv4ZLtjp0FMeOfDesUbYC dT7g6piFpa2rNX7L/RoUBw4lwb96kyoO39mZa6/4/LOJKtKswW9IH0BYgo97MU5o9gOq vNYLcN5gsPLkoKjqehh6Smy1L5K+PvJgEl6dSR7LDt+qZT4U26T4gxM2nmmerGV0iaTS H5Gg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=qYeZ6d7dzbnK8EFI3TH11bkRNWDPjBxWrfQjO/kh7/U=; b=XDwBfl7M/eKbw7KHeiHdIxu2Zs4H3YmjvnH7no5D527w14RXaVTLf2DiDG2bXnOkQ/ P4EUlQpgQJiBYt9Tjo3rQzVOmNiz1pak8c347cG1lqt96jovS/DwK6Y0rZHdiXikr7y4 pnlwwHq3wplbkQdx3WGLkHCqbOip/CdAkju8NxvmbaxCe7N8QG64R0nKllWqki4YVdz0 VDX9o6KiPSKtAhs8fi0Z9Wim/OqXKRMQgJWZj9oFuKh5VcE0Cy7nd70rLhg0Q36Dv1sP LYLJvqQXfoD9yoZVMkZNMVYis96SbmW78ssMEwu4UcRSRERYZ/J6jz43bvZHpm0cR712 7/FA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXHI+OgjBMbwQNjZeT1ITjbT2P/Q2LdO9vNp4CJ/EhVB5BE3Oj0 MmyvcySJ1dZPZkOKRm9mS0INSmdK30M=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyCcc0l7L+ufrxgCYosZgZ6OjuP4O+7AtvWePyysJ/VzYHGSgV/TJmR0L5iUM3ePGaZvJnraA==
X-Received: by 2002:aed:3e21:: with SMTP id l30mr7854056qtf.357.1576772762718; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:26:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.100.1.112] (rrcs-69-135-1-122.central.biz.rr.com. [69.135.1.122]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j1sm1827800qkl.86.2019.12.19.08.26.01 for <tcpm@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:26:02 -0800 (PST)
To: tcpm@ietf.org
References: <5D669BDA.3000506@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <5D66A044.3060904@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Message-ID: <1af8bf06-62af-8b78-65fc-121b6c51513f@mti-systems.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 11:26:01 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5D66A044.3060904@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/ejTXbUeUs-C16goeztAPv91xWgs>
Subject: [tcpm] 793bis: IPv6 jumbograms
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 16:26:05 -0000

I'm planning to apply Gorry's suggested text below directly, unless 
anyone has objections or other thoughts?

On 8/28/2019 11:39 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> OLD:
> 3.7.5.  IPv6 Jumbograms
>
>    In order to support TCP over IPv6 jumbograms, implementations need to
>    be able to send TCP segments larger than the 64KB limit that the MSS
>    option can convey.  RFC 2675 [6] defines that an MSS value of 65,535
>    bytes is to be treated as infinity, and Path MTU Discovery [3] is
>    used to determine the actual MSS.
> - This was discussed in the 6Man WG in Montreal, and while there was no
> consensus reached to obsolete jumbograms, there was encouragement
> to ensure that specs describe jumbo grams appropriate, rather than
> suggesting support is required. In this sense, I recommend adding
> something like:
> NEW:
>    The Jumbo Payload option need not be implemented or understood by
>    IPv6 nodes that do not support attachment to links with a MTU greater
>    than 65,575 [RFC2675], and  the present IPv6 Node Requirements
>    does not include support for Jumbograms [RFC8504].