Hi, I agree with the other comments that this shouldn’t be adopted at this point.
Another point is that what I understand this is proposing would appear to have non-trivial effect on current transport protocols, as it will add delay to create the “parcels”. I don’t see this issue discussed in the draft, other than pointing to some other perhaps similar work. Bob > On Jul 1, 2022, at 5:17 PM, Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple....@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote: > > 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> 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 >> 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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
