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

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Sat, 31 July 2021 21:08 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 47BF93A1B8F for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 14:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.319
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.319 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, 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 X_4ZwZTuMtpD for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 14:08:21 -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 A6A043A1B8E for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 14:08:21 -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=D8g8jT6ORw4L57tsieqzrua9UhqpvVUHWGRAwofaF2k=; b=QXchemF1WV7ZKL27xTQo4gPjRK H3mz9pjhk8fUeueBNOy8FDrRTalcQq7CbVbQO0N5sOingZTFrb86wxIkDsh3wlzJh3lFGgyl0Og5D 5mQoUuvaD6NCxykQ4umsaHeOOSEAA2WL+KktVLFZp+weqTiDXWZ/9OV/eAg7c3efZ4VIzmndLidoI mdZ9DXRpgxwN7YEeIEntbbh0cbNtaUT38hmptxDZNV4PelZzIb+dc2XH+mA7mTmjmc8OCT408uIk/ xCqRF5HfaCyflLJYUcs8D0YeFhTj3ydLRmFLYnS5iIJqC0kDMwozntYU84yqGQu9P+wPZA0wq2GsU EOeN+D0g==;
Received: from cpe-172-114-237-88.socal.res.rr.com ([172.114.237.88]:62377 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 1m9wDP-000DiI-5m; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 17:08:19 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S3435ZjAz8ECgbFbH=Hxm-cXAGRQjTbxgtGb9U-CTXMw=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 14:08:13 -0700
Cc: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C8CE3912-55B2-4DC0-AB39-2D6EA6953500@strayalpha.com>
References: <CALx6S37zVVXnCH+Dv7_QXgwOoqcL4h0SThh+LnmAWn-5enprZQ@mail.gmail.com> <FA155FD9-2319-405C-B082-C023DEC2BF28@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S3435ZjAz8ECgbFbH=Hxm-cXAGRQjTbxgtGb9U-CTXMw=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
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/f0C5fRSmt7EIAVglWvqNF0vXgG4>
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: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 21:08:26 -0000

Right - per fragment options would be OK, not per reassembled datagram.

Would that suffice?

Joe

> On Jul 31, 2021, at 1:42 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 12:42 PM Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 31, 2021, at 11:58 AM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> There’s no way that endpoint can ensure it never sees non-fragment UDP options, so it cannot support UDP options.
>>>> 
>>> For a tunnel, use of UDP options would just be another configuration
>>> parameter at the end points; we don't need negotiation to send
>>> non-legacy packets. If there's a mismatch in endpoint configuration
>>> then the operator simply detects it and fixes it like any other tunnel
>>> configuration problem.
>> 
>> Ok, the simply don’t set any per packet options and I’ll be fine.
>> 
> I think you might mean the other way around. Per packet options are
> already defined in the draft to be in the headers, including the
> fragment option, so there's no issue concerning protocol trailers.
> There would only be a problem from options that apply to the
> reassembled packet which would be in trailers of the last fragment.
> 
> Tom
> 
>> Joe
>