IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tsvwg] Re: [Int-area] Re: IP Parcels and Advanced Jumbos (AJs)

"Gorry (erg)" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Fri, 27 September 2024 16:50 UTC

Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
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 118F5C14F736 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Sep 2024 09:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.016
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.016 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, MPART_ALT_DIFF=0.79, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l5DZNHWwGKOB for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Sep 2024 09:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:42:150::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69EAEC14F5F9 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2024 09:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [85.255.235.9]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 19CBB1B00DED; Fri, 27 Sep 2024 17:50:07 +0100 (BST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-775FA5B9-AC52-4DBA-B0BF-70CF91E884AA"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Gorry (erg)" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 17:49:54 +0100
Message-Id: <625CAB3D-0F6F-4B5C-9813-0F8672E8139D@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
References: <CACL_3VE=Zg3jCqHDGcdF4RHDVKi1TFdoUGa+_4pQS9YHAP-Heg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACL_3VE=Zg3jCqHDGcdF4RHDVKi1TFdoUGa+_4pQS9YHAP-Heg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (20H350)
Message-ID-Hash: 5UNDNCV6J5YHIEUXSB6WL7MLHN5ESPCD
X-Message-ID-Hash: 5UNDNCV6J5YHIEUXSB6WL7MLHN5ESPCD
X-MailFrom: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tsvwg.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: L Templin Fred <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [tsvwg] Re: [Int-area] Re: IP Parcels and Advanced Jumbos (AJs)
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/eOiTVVDxq89IFJ4XMBOHGTDfwas>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tsvwg-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tsvwg-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tsvwg-leave@ietf.org>

Go

On 27 Sep 2024, at 17:20, C. M. Heard <heard@pobox.com> wrote:


Fred,

Just out of curiosity, what is the "easy fix" to make UDP Options compatible with Jumbograms?

Mike Heard

On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 8:50 AM Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
Content changes are not allowed in AUTH48, but We just concluded WG last call.

On Sep 27, 2024, at 8:43 AM, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:



> UDP options cannot currently be used for still larger sizes

 

Actually, there is an easy fix for this which can be added to the queue for AUTH48.

 

Fred

 

From: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin=40boeing.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2024 8:19 AM
To: touch@strayalpha.com
Cc: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>; Internet Area <Int-area@ietf.org>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>; tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Subject: [Int-area] Re: IP Parcels and Advanced Jumbos (AJs)

 

Hi Joe,

 

>That approach to UDP jumbo grams is incompatible with UDP options.

 

IP parcels and Advanced Jumbos per my drafts are compatible with UDP options for sizes

up to ~64KB. UDP options cannot currently be used for still larger sizes, but I suspect it

will be a long time before we have to worry about that.

 

Fred

 

From: touch@strayalpha.com <touch@strayalpha.com>
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2024 8:13 AM
To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>; Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>; Internet Area <Int-area@ietf.org>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>; tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] IP Parcels and Advanced Jumbos (AJs)

 

EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.

 

 

 

On Sep 27, 2024, at 7:58 AM, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin=40boeing.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

 

Indeed. But if sendmsg() and recvmsg() can and do generate RFC2675 packets, it means that any discussion of obsoleting RFC2675 should be
off the table.


No one that I know of has suggested obsoleting RFC2675 - my documents do not say "obsoletes" (nor even "updates”).

 

That approach to UDP jumbo grams is incompatible with UDP options. 

 

And yes, there was a proposal to move that RFC to historic:

 
Jones, T., G. Fairhurst, "Change Status of RFC 2675 to Historic," draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675, May 2019.
 
We COULD have a new option with a longer length, but that’s not in our baseline draft.
 

Joe

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status