IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (zero copy)

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Mon, 19 July 2021 22:02 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 E04533A0CA4 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 15:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.318
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.318 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, 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 Yvf21V0B8RLy for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 15:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (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 514593A0C9F for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 15:02:51 -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:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: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=DwNSVENhLrMi4F1/LFeCp++XlxU5HXXRkYYGie/QAqg=; b=fMugTSBGoB63rSbgODvmsCi0id bSARwHUZB2a58BkJH3G21L3T0RtgN2DEMLp8oSJfSzLagP49+9XU1AMhqdW/CCKAFgdGKOtj7Tad9 B30Nm0NRqCJ9Uqpw+Y4putxb8p/z/DLpWnlQmgi5Fqn/Akw/bdexB6wp0zS5pUERN77ewKF44EzZb PFX6TnwxttsWoxws3yu1OXke1iIfZ3ps1/bKWq/ul3+xa0GB1nBWQvgo+YCWywiAfaO1Zj4uCNBA9 a+r3a6ftbZ0BvDLpLe1jHh4sGFL0FhYCPoVUsaoRmDAUCEi54CwRktVg8wLv/5p5i4+6impfbP5HK w13mi5Kw==;
Received: from cpe-172-114-237-88.socal.res.rr.com ([172.114.237.88]:58841 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 1m5bLa-001a3B-Bp; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:02:50 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C5DC4B0B-53F9-46E6-AE7D-CA9316543A9D"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.100.0.2.22\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S34k0CV4gdCv9i7dOa_MqamGqBE76BKjpVWFfNnbHUXK9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 15:02:42 -0700
Cc: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <0F3CC1B6-55D7-46A4-B932-739E8050C9AA@strayalpha.com>
References: <CALx6S34WtGABWJEL_CBJAhSFb9JpR97Dr9emX-K0PxUGZ3VvnQ@mail.gmail.com> <927E12B2-D77E-4810-BABC-18D090F0A022@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S37H6wAt4FyGqwm038R=GeiOY0Wt-YY1Hb+XDjGX4Cw_QQ@mail.gmail.com> <6ADBCB38-9C0B-4A43-8877-4177F162D001@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S368+gozryvmkiZVk5jZsOJgtU96Mcpi8pqLBAqJObHh4A@mail.gmail.com> <E7ACEA2D-5F1D-4C23-8915-5F072781FB26@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S34k0CV4gdCv9i7dOa_MqamGqBE76BKjpVWFfNnbHUXK9g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
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/ZA66hN1kAG2wGw4U7Ck2Ao9pXJI>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (zero copy)
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: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 22:02:56 -0000


> On Jul 19, 2021, at 2:58 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 2:32 PM Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com <mailto:touch@strayalpha.com>> wrote:
> Hi, Tom,
> 
> First, there’s a good reason to not assume we can put the fragment “whole packet” options in the first fragment: size. We currently have no limit on how much space options can use in general. Per-fragment options clearly need to fit inside the fragment with fragment data. But the options on the reassembled packet might be difficult to assume can be contained in the first fragment alone.
> 
> Further, you have proposed several scenarios that claim that users may either want or need to not support legacy mode UDP options, but do want to use fragment-based options. That’s not permitted in the current spec and never has been.
> 
> Mode is chosen by the transmitter, not the receiver. Support for legacy mode has always been required.
> 
> That limits the usability and hence adoption of the protocol.

That may be true, but it’s never been on the table.

The whole point is to support legacy mode. If we don’t, we could simply create a new protocol from scratch, which would limit the adoption of the protocol even further.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email