In which group you want to present your case? Hesham
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024, 3:53 PM Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > Perhaps a plenary slot in Dublin where we can make the case? > > p vixie > > On Sep 24, 2024 17:00, Hesham ElBakoury <helbako...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Fred, > My impression is that this topic has not received strong support in IETF. > If this is true, then how you plan to change IETF position? > > Thanks > Hesham > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024, 1:44 PM Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin= > 40boeing....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> 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> 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 >> >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- int-area@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to int-area-le...@ietf.org
