Hi Joe, >That approach to UDP jumbo grams is incompatible with UDP options.
IP parcels and Advanced Jumbos per my drafts are compatible with UDP options for sizes up to ~64KB. UDP options cannot currently be used for still larger sizes, but I suspect it will be a long time before we have to worry about that. Fred From: to...@strayalpha.com <to...@strayalpha.com> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2024 8:13 AM To: Templin (US), Fred L <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>; Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com>; Tim Chown <tim.ch...@jisc.ac.uk>; Internet Area <Int-area@ietf.org>; IPv6 List <i...@ietf.org>; tsvwg IETF list <ts...@ietf.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] IP Parcels and Advanced Jumbos (AJs) EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments. On Sep 27, 2024, at 7:58 AM, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin=40boeing....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:Fred.L.Templin=40boeing....@dmarc.ietf.org>> 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. Joe
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- int-area@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to int-area-le...@ietf.org
