IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Trajectory for "transition" mechanisms in our working group

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Thu, 18 October 2018 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D0C12F18C for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 09:31:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 vMP6dn7nzwlI for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 09:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (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 305B512D4E6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 09:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 24418B0; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:31:47 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1539880307; bh=NGZFMrnGAY8axhmYhOF4fgvr8fMX/maMCysWYMDnxB8=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=0K203VPpWFHXx+B1cFJ++Nnp1f9jbUP7FGksEMK+dw9wKRVDDsqiLCgWu9Yo/YjML CudGhrlC8shXlw3+X8ZJ/iZ2BX8UijNoRe73jR7YYYwSMtZKyKE7umXmlxuXR1i0Nb SMxru6YtjHPaZobBz4WKWyEwmsBPVQGpKpFffM/o=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2156FAF; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:31:47 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:31:47 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>
cc: v6ops@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <943cc5e8-ec11-0848-b8c1-4a173b158cfc@asgard.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1810181830370.26856@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <153751052820.5339.10049404273601155140.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <96bb5ddb-95f9-2437-f0b2-b1274912bf3c@asgard.org> <998ee2b5-1506-db20-c09a-9eb13e6e4e38@otenet.gr> <4802145C-8FC0-46AD-95A8-7498C52F67FD@consulintel.es> <06e64fd9-a6bf-adca-72f4-860c7771c41f@otenet.gr> <a330e114-5a2d-74cf-0bdc-154be1ec681b@asgard.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1810180916480.26856@uplift.swm.pp.se> <7872C714-A9AB-4750-BFD7-65B51D6F175C@consulintel.es> <406158AF-3450-44B8-BAB6-0EA75520922D@employees.org> <6104C9CF-5B63-4236-B123-1CE20364F41E@consulintel.es> <4D9F971A-62BC-4F53-9125-0B37E2CB0AC1@employees.org> <39CAAA09-67A1-4BD0-B23F-C3FC988D22A3@consulintel.es> <E65453D1-79B1-4A7D-9E92-AF3363E59BD9@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1810181151080.26856@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAD6AjGSSEd8ToGqX0xj3BVve0r0y6rQm+QzXX+xOUoBf=ffaBw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1810181554360.26856@uplift.swm.pp.se> <943cc5e8-ec11-0848-b8c1-4a173b158cfc@asgard.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ZSM61hDTY7AkEY4r-f8UzHXOCuo>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Trajectory for "transition" mechanisms in our working group
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 16:31:51 -0000

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, Lee Howard wrote:

> Your argument is that somebody might implement it wrong?

Nope.

> Doesn't that apply to literally everything?

Yes.

> If a process black-holes your packets, you should turn it off. Does that 
> really mean you have to turn off acceleration?

That's not how it works. This is not a "process". This is HW built into 
the SoC that conflates lots of things, including NIC, L2 switch, 
processor, and heaps of other things.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

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