IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-13.txt

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Sun, 20 June 2021 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6BF23A0AD8; Sun, 20 Jun 2021 11:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.454
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.652, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 AI1q7o9K7Gpa; Sun, 20 Jun 2021 11:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-4.web-hosting.com (server217-4.web-hosting.com [198.54.116.98]) (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 E5A583A0AD6; Sun, 20 Jun 2021 11:51:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=5Zcd0UcOJoIXPpaXOyZ2yd4uJ0iztNXzWS1bZ+xbZAw=; b=ZWuqGzLGr8Pl3J8mkF6fJDlfy0 OACaFp87FDaodb1n8oGbCv90XsgHKC1ecw2ICyUjzddsnOnxI2rnkPNOCdPpnNKTsw+iy7SAKqtdg CA0rlv2oQt7hpdTwdGsljewX8nqmkPjn0Faf7I0lVQiGj6OSSYufyqe3CosKmSx1TnTsnQGQewMwN bzqlwiHd57XFlBzKy6VVuFjU7mp8NmQkH9z2ul6Tn8k//pAqOQgfTxnAFYP+xHbSxe3BVkr2AyfYA wvETsbWeXegJIBv+NyEtBwqSF6V7Lj1o364A0/+/8kFx52u/ppkHm6IsoKFoDXiBuKUpKvgUZXJl+ Xnvtuf8A==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:65391 helo=smtpclient.apple) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1lv2Xb-000rJT-L9; Sun, 20 Jun 2021 14:51:35 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.100.0.2.22\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210620171249.le6tjyi7h66jggq2@family.redbarn.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2021 11:51:30 -0700
Cc: TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>, i-d-announce@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1599550B-FF22-4DF3-9467-9C157E6F39AC@strayalpha.com>
References: <162408795080.21706.5548660195641640175@ietfa.amsl.com> <C2C396E7-B728-496E-841B-D9F64004D3E3@strayalpha.com> <20210620043304.c6xerpura7lyw6yo@family.redbarn.org> <95274A1D-3C51-4D40-A5AB-7E8A4AEFDD1B@strayalpha.com> <20210620171249.le6tjyi7h66jggq2@family.redbarn.org>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.100.0.2.22)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/7CJy95fmYzN--ZEro_joJv-qzl4>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-13.txt
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2021 18:51:41 -0000

FWIW, there is no guidance on TCP transmitting its 10 segments back to back, AFAICT.

Joe

> On Jun 20, 2021, at 10:12 AM, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 09:54:54AM -0700, Joseph Touch wrote:
>> ...
>> 
>> Note that TCP bursts up to 10 packets right now anyway,
>> so I don???t see why UDP fragments couldn???t do the same.
> 
> if tcp sends more than three before it has any estimate of the congestion
> window, then i withdraw my suggestion of "3". however, i ask that some
> guidance be offered about not transmitting fragments back to back, if the
> number is larger than "2". and i do hope the number will be larger than "2",
> due to page/MTU sizes.
> 
> vixie
> 
> re:
> 
>>> On Jun 19, 2021, at 9:33 PM, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 12:38:51AM -0700, Joseph Touch wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> How many frags MUST be supported 2? 4?
>>> 
>>> if they'll be transmitted back to back, microburst style, like IP fragments are,
>>> then 2. if there's implementation guidance to send the frags isochronously on
>>> a schedule of some kind, to give other transmissions an opportunity to enter,
>>> then 3. on today-typical MTU 1500 networks, "3" allows a today-typical 4K page
>>> to be sent as a fragmented UDP datagram. in future networks we should expect
>>> this ratio from then-typical MTU to then-typical page size to be more or less
>>> similar.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Paul Vixie
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Paul Vixie
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email