Richard and others, thank you for these comments and for the ensuing discussion that took place over the time I was away on vacation. Strange how the timing hit when I was away from the office and off the grid - I was on a camping trip in Canada not far from where Steve Deering lives although I did not visit him.
In any event, I was able to push out a new draft version ahead of the deadline that may address some (but likely not all) of your concerns: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-intarea-parcels/ The major change is that the draft now talks about interactions with upper layer protocols including TCP and UDP, whereas the previous draft versions were silent regarding upper layer protocol framing. To others who have commented, I beg to differ and maintain that IP parcels do represent a significant improvement over the current state of affairs and over just regular IP jumbograms. In particular: 1) IP parcels make it so that the loss unit is a single segment instead of the entire packet/parcel, and loss of a segment often results in retransmission of just that segment instead of the entire packet/parcel. 2) IP parcels are more efficient than sending a single segment per IP packet, since the parcel includes a single IP header plus single full {TCP,UDP} header for possibly many segments. This can result in significant savings in terms of bits over the wire for omitting unnecessary header bytes. Consider the postal service analogy; when many items can be sent together in a single package/parcel there is a large savings in shipping and handling costs than when each individual item is shipped separately. 3) IP parcels improve large packet integrity by including a separate checksum for each segment instead of a single checksum for the entire packet. This means that large parcels (up to a few MB) can be sent in one piece over links with sufficiently large MTU without requiring the link itself to provide strong integrity checks over the entire length of the parcel. This means that link MTUs significantly larger than 9KB are now safely possible. 4) IP parcels offer all of the efficiency advantages to upper layers as are offered by GSO/GRO, etc. but also provide benefits 1) through 3) above that are not offered by GSO/GRO. 5) Plus, the idea is just plain neat. Better packaging is good. More efficient handling is good. Reduced header overhead is good. SAFE larger MTUs are good. The idea itself is good. Fred From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Richard Li Sent: Friday, July 01, 2022 3:11 PM To: Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga) <juzuniga=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> Cc: int-area@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for WG adoption of draft-templin-intarea-parcels-10 Chairs and Authors, I always like every new idea and effort to improve the Internet performance, and thus I have read this draft with a great interest. The following are my observations/comments/questions. If they don’t make any sense to you, please accept my apology, and disregard them. 1. The text “multiple upper layer protocol segments” is ambiguous. It seems that you really mean “multiple segments from ‘the same’ upper layer protocol”, doesn’t it? It seems that multiple segments from different upper layer protocols are not allowed in your parcel. 2. Is the following a fair statement? All segments in the same packet come from the same application identified by the 5-tupe (source address, destination address, source port, destination port, protocol number). 3. Segment size You require that their sizes be the same except for the last one. Is this required for easy implementation or what? Do you require it for any other reasons? 4. TTL issue You described how parcels are forwarded over the Internetwork, and in particular you described what the ingress/egress middlebox does about parcels. I understand that the ingress middlebox may break the parcel into smaller ones, which may rejoin at the egress middlebox. My question is about TTL. As different smaller parcels may traverse along different paths, as a result their TTLs may be different when they reach the egress middlebox . How does the egress middlebox set up the TTL value? Please provide more descriptions. 5. Reordering at the egress middlebox The parcels would arrive one after another, and therefore the egress middlebox would “wait” for a little bit to identify and pick up enough parcels/packets for their rejoining and repackaging. A description of the egress middlebox behavior would be useful and helpful, in particular I would like to know more about the waiting time if any, and how you deal with the reordering and loss. 6. IPv4 option Does IETF still allow to change/add IPv4 option fields? I might be wrong, but aren’t they frozen? Also, do commercial routers still care about IPv4 options? 7. IPv6 option This draft has defined a hop-by-hop option, it will require every intermediate IPv6 router to inspect this option. There have been some discussions on the pros/cons about Hop-by-Hop IPv6 Option. Is there any feedback from WG 6man? 8. Parcel Path Qualification This draft has described a method for parcel path qualification probe from end to end. It is nice to have it, but it is unreliable simply for the following reason: a probe parcel goes along one specific path, and your real application parcels may take different paths. 9. Integrity First paragraph of Section 7. More explanation/elaboration should be useful. I might have missed it in previous paragraphs, but if I do, please provide a reference to it such as “as described in …”. 10. Implementation Status In section 10. TSO’s performance gain and Parcel’s gain should be regarded as two different things. Since this draft is adding a hop-by-hop option, every intermediate router is required to process the hop-by-hop option, which will, theoretically speaking, lead to performance downgrade. Of course, the whole performance would depend on many other factors, such as the total numbers of routing table lookups and number of segments. 11. General observation This proposal essentially tries to solve a problem caused by MTU. If MTU be very big, one would simply put the whole data in a single packet. Since MTU is limited, a packet has to be cut into many smaller pieces (segments). In the existing specification, when an intermediate router sees a packet with its size larger than MTU, the router would be expected to fragment it so that the fragments could be forwarded. Here let me call it “fragmentation as needed”. In reality, however, some (if not all) commercial routers don’t do “fragmentation as needed”, instead of fragmenting the packet they simply discard it in order to achieve the wire-speed. This draft defines a new way to address the MTU issue: when a router sees a packet with its size larger than MTU, the router is asked to fragment it in a prescribed way (fragment it into pre-packaged segments). If I may, let me call it “fragmentation as prescribed”. Both “fragmentation as needed” and “fragmentation as prescribed” would require the support from intermediate routers. As the same as fragmentation as needed, fragmentation as prescribed may downgrade the performance of intermediate routers. What is more, intermediate routers/boxes may perform “rejoining and repackaging”, which will adversely impact the performance of the intermediate routers/boxes. Best regards, Richard From: Int-area <int-area-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga) Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 12:25 PM To: int-area@ietf.org<mailto:int-area@ietf.org> Subject: [Int-area] Call for WG adoption of draft-templin-intarea-parcels-10 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<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Farchive%2Fid%2Fdraft-templin-intarea-parcels-10.html&data=05%7C01%7Crichard.li%40futurewei.com%7C715b5db213134932c70208da5484f702%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637915227299598680%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=w4G5ypaSRv%2FR31%2F%2B857XT2xUqHdEXv90ubD5GGjqBEQ%3D&reserved=0> 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
