I agree with the points being raised by Tom and Joel. I don’t think this is something intarea should adopt at this point. If there’s going to be further discussion on this, I’d want to see more explanation of who would intend to support and deploy this solution to the problem.
If this is a matter of sending fewer packets over a particular link of the network, the use of a proxy or tunnel between hosts may equally well solve the problem without needing to make changes at this layer. Thanks, Tommy > On Jul 1, 2022, at 5:06 PM, Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com> wrote: > > At this point, I don't see IP parcels as being a significant benefit to host > performance which, as I understand it, is the primary motivation. While it's > an interesting idea, I don't support adoption. > > A recent patch to the Linux kernel allows for GSO/GRO segments greater than > 64K, using RFC2675 Jumbograms to reassemble so those limitations which were > discussed on the list have been addressed in implementation. There is a nice > writeup in https://lwn.net/Articles/884104/. > > As Joel mentions moving any sort of reassembly into network devices is > complex and problematic. For instance, if a middebox is trying to perform > reassembly of packets for a flow not addressed to it, it's implicitly > requiring that all packets of the flow that go through the device perform > reassembly which is contrary to the end-to-end model. Also, if reassembly > requires buffering of messages then that creates a memory requirement on > middleboxes; hosts are in a better position to do reassembly since they are > only providing the service for themselves as opposed to some number of > devices behind a middlebox. > > Tom > > > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 12:25 PM Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga) > <juzuniga=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> > wrote: >> Dear IntArea WG, >> >> >> >> We are starting a 2-week call for adoption of the IP-Parcels draft: >> >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-templin-intarea-parcels-10.html >> >> >> >> The document has been discussed for some time and it has received multiple >> comments. >> >> >> >> If you have an opinion on whether this document should be adopted by the >> IntArea WG please indicate it on the list by the end of Wednesday July 6th. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Juan-Carlos & Wassim >> >> (IntArea WG chairs) >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Int-area mailing list >> Int-area@ietf.org <mailto:Int-area@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
