[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]