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

Joe Touch <[email protected]> Fri, 27 Sep 2024 08:47:52 -0700
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.int,gmane.ietf.ipv6,gmane.ietf.tsvwg
Message-ID <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, September 27, 2024 8:19 AM

To: [email protected]

Cc: Tim Chown <[email protected]>; Internet Area <[email protected]>; IPv6 List <[email protected]>; tsvwg IETF list <[email protected]>

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:
[email protected] <[email protected] >

Sent: Friday, September 27, 2024 8:13 AM

To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected] >

Cc: Brian E Carpenter <[email protected] >; Tom Herbert <[email protected] >; Tim Chown <[email protected] >;
Internet Area <[email protected] >; IPv6 List <[email protected] >; tsvwg IETF list <[email protected] >

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 <[email protected] > 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

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]