Thanks Paul, as you know well the Internet has come a long way since the days of FDDI but has not done very well at accommodating packet size diversity. We can and should do better, IMO.
Fred From: Paul Vixie <paul=40redbarn....@dmarc.ietf.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2024 12:59 PM To: Templin (US), Fred L <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>; Internet Area <Int-area@ietf.org>; IPv6 List <i...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Int-area] IP Parcels and Advanced Jumbos (AJs) Something like this is long needed and will become badly needed. Every 10X of speed increase since 10mbit/sec has gone straight to PPS, whereas the speed increase from 3mbit/sec to 10mbit/sec was shared between PPS and MTU. If every 10X has been shared between PPS and MTU, say sqrt(10) for each, our MTU would be well over 64K by now and our PPS wouldn't require dedicated NPU hardware to source, sink, and ferry those packets at link saturation levels. Every attempt at PMTUD so far has failed but that's not an excuse to stop trying. Thanks for driving this Fred. p vixie On Sep 24, 2024 14:39, "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin=40boeing....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:Fred.L.Templin=40boeing....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: It has been a while since I have posted about this, and there are some updates to highlight. See below for the IPv6 and IPv4 versions of “IP Parcels and Advanced Jumbos (AJs)”: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-6man-parcels2/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-intarea-parcels2/ The documents acknowledge that parcels are analogous to Generic Segment/Receive Offload (GSO/GRO) but taken to the ultimate aspiration of encapsulating multi-segment buffers in {TCP/UDP}/IP headers for transmission over parcel-capable network paths. They further give a name to the multi-segment buffers used by GSO/GRO, suggesting that they be called “parcel buffers” or simply “parcels”. AJs are simply single-segment parcels that can range in size from very small to very large. They differ from ordinary jumbograms in several important ways, most notably in terms of integrity verification and error correction. They also suggest a new link service model that defers integrity checks to the end systems where bad data can be discarded while good data can be accepted as an end-to-end function, reducing retransmissions. Together, these documents cover all possible packet sizes and configurations that may be necessary both in the near term and for the foreseeable future for Internetworking performance maximization . Comments on the list(s) are welcome. Fred Templin
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- int-area@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to int-area-le...@ietf.org
