[Int-area] Re: UDP options [was IP Parcels and Advanced Ju mbos (AJs)]

Joe,
On 28-Sep-24 03:13, [email protected] wrote:
> 
>> 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.

Wouldn't that be tricky, because the options follow the whole payload as I understand it? So a JumboUDPgram has to be received in full, however big it is, before the option saying that it's a jumbo can be received and interpreted.

Where the udp-options draft says:

>> The technique has been proposed for deprecation [Jo19].

I think you'd better change it to something like:

The technique is known to be in active use in special situations, so cannot reasonably be deprecated. However, users of this technique cannot simultaneously use UDP options.

     Brian



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