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

This concern is overcome by events; IP Parcels and Advanced Jumbos of all sizes now support UDP options.

From: Joe Touch <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2024 8:48 AM
To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>
Cc: Fred L Templin <[email protected]>; Tim Chown <[email protected]>; Internet Area <[email protected]>; IPv6 List <[email protected]>; tsvwg IETF list <[email protected]>; Fred L Templin <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Re: IP Parcels and Advanced Jumbos (AJs)

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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2024 8:19 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: Tim Chown <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Internet Area <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; IPv6 List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; tsvwg IETF list <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2024 8:13 AM
To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Tom Herbert <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Tim Chown <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Internet Area <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; IPv6 List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; tsvwg IETF list <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]