Alex, I do not think there is any problem for QUIC. IPv6 Next Header field only takes a value for UDP; it does not take a value for QUIC. It is QUIC's job to make sure that everything beyond the UDP header is aligned properly for its own purposes.
Fred > -----Original Message----- > From: Alexandre Petrescu [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 12:53 AM > To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] Side meeting follow-up: What exact > features do we want from the Internet? > > EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments. > > > > > > Le 15/12/2021 à 19:56, Templin (US), Fred L a écrit : > > Alex, > > > >> A new feature in an ALv2 would be that instead of just a > >> frag-reassembly from sender to receiver, one would consider > >> group-degroup of packets too, to reduce overhead. If this too is > >> not already there in ALs. > > > > The adaptation layer is that layer below the network layer but above > > the data link layer. The group-degroup functions you are referring to > > would apply at the adaptation layer send-side entry or receive-side > > exit. > > Yes, from a topology perspective that's where 'group-degroup' could sit. > > From an ISO layer perspective a 'group-degroup' would probably sit in an > adaptation layer, below IP and above data link layer. > > A 'group-degroup' function can also be seen in the jumbogram software > mechanism, rather than in the frag-defrag mechanism. The jumbogram > seems to be in the app layer (ApL?) whereas frag-defrag in the > adaptation layer (AdL?). > > This makes wonder whether a group-degroup function would go into ApL or > rather in the AdL? > > Whether or not the modern QUIC, rather than the older UDP and TCP, > includes a jumbogram mechanism and potentially group-degroup functions > could be explored. Because IPv6 jumbograms are specified for TCP and > UDP (RFC2675 "jumbograms"), but not for QUIC. This could further hint > on which layer is best for a group-degroup function, AdL or ApL. > > Alex > > Those > > sorts of capabilities are already out in the wild in some systems, > > but I have not seen a formal IETF spec yet. This seems like something > > that could be mentioned in an adaptation layer spec. > > > > Fred _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
