Bob, the AERO/OMNI specs are also asking for an Ethernet number, IP protocol
and UDP port number
for what appear to be very similar purposes (actually we already have the UDP
port) – the request has
been sitting latent in the specs for a long time.
What do you want to use these SCHC values for,
Tom, if an IPv4 packet includes extension headers per this document, what
happens if
the IPv4 header gets translated into an IPv6 header by some middlebox on the
path?
Will the extension headers also require some form or translation, or will they
happily
coexist with the new IPv6 header?
Hello, a new article has been posted to the APNIC Blog on "Delay Tolerant
Networking Performance":
https://blog.apnic.net/2024/03/25/delay-tolerant-networking-performance/
The article specifically addresses performance aspects of the Licklider
Transmission Protocol (LTP)
based on two popular
> I disagree. EH is not a transport protocol. There's already precedent
> for supporting EH in IPv4 in AH and ESP. No one would ever call these
> transport layer protocols. The same thing is true for other EH if they
> are enabled for IPv4 just like ESP and AH were enabled.
Tom is right.
Fred
Brian,
> Why should the IETF spend effort on upgrading IPv4 capabilities at this point?
For air/land/sea/space mobile Internetworking, we expect to engage steady-state
IP
fragmentation over some paths, but IPv4 will still be in the picture for a long
time to
come and IPv4 fragmentation has
The question is not necessarily one of hardware vs. software; but it is one of
end-to-end vs. the middle.
From: Int-area On Behalf Of Robinson, Herbie
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 3:49 PM
To: Templin (US), Fred L ; Paul
Vixie ; Tom Herbert ; Christian Huitema
Cc: Gorry (erg) ; int-area
Herbie, an alternative to trying to force advanced integrity checks into
hardware is for the
source to include a higher fidelity integrity check along with the jumbo, then
the destination
gets to verify the integrity after the jumbo has traversed the path. That way,
there is still
good
Tim and Gorry, thank you for this meeting report-out. I have a draft out right
now that I
think addresses most if not all of the points regarding larger packet sizes.
The draft was
aligned with intarea for a long time but was recently re-aligned with 6man and
refactored
to focus on IPv6. I did
I will take a swing at what I have in mind, run it up the flagpole in 6man, and
see what happens there.
Thanks - Fred
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Herbert
> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2023 1:01 PM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L
> Cc: int-area
> Subject:
destination will
recognize the HBH option, then it should be OK to include the option even if
the high order bits are 00. And, that is plenty good enough for me.
Thanks - Fred
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Herbert
> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2023 11:31 AM
> To: Templin
Hi Tom,
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Herbert
> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2023 9:00 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L
> Cc: int-area
> Subject: Re: "Identification Extension for the Internet Protocol" question
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 8:0
Hi Tom,
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Herbert
> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2023 8:50 AM
> To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
> Cc: Templin (US), Fred L ; int-area
>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] "Identification Extension for the Internet
> Prot
Hi Tom,
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Herbert
> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2023 11:33 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L
> Cc: int-area
> Subject: Re: "Identification Extension for the Internet Protocol" question
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 10:5
Tom, please have another look at the draft – it gets the job done without
requiring any new kinds of IPv6 extension headers, HBH options, etc,:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-intarea-ipid-ext/
Thank you – Fred
From: Templin (US), Fred L
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 7:14
Thank you for this follow up - much appreciated.
Fred
From: Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga)
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2023 8:15 AM
To: Templin (US), Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: IETF 118 IntArea minutes
EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.
Thanks
n the Per-Fragment headers, so I guess
that means it needs to be “Hop-by-Hop Option”, right?
Thanks - Fred
From: Tom Herbert
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 4:22 PM
To: Templin (US), Fred L
Cc: Templin (US), Fred L ; int-area
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: "Identification Extension for the Int
the Identification extension in a Hop-by-Hop option instead of defining a
new Fragment
Header type?
Fred
From: Int-area On Behalf Of Templin (US), Fred L
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 1:30 PM
To: Tom Herbert
Cc: int-area
Subject: Re: [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: "Identification Extension for the
Int
it
would
take is an update to RFC8200, but we already have to do that in order to define
a new
extension header type.
Fred
From: Tom Herbert
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 1:11 PM
To: Templin (US), Fred L
Cc: int-area
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] "Identification Extension for the Int
acks
in having a discontinuity in 8-octet alignment. Especially since no
implementations currently exist.
Fred
From: Tom Herbert
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 12:04 PM
To: Templin (US), Fred L
Cc: int-area
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] "Identification Extension for the Internet
Prot
Section 8 of "Identification Extension for the Internet Protocol" proposes a
new IPv6 extension
header called the "Extended Fragment Header" that includes a 96-bit (12 octet)
Identification
field making the total length of the extension header 128-bits (16 octets):
integrity checks per the Stone/Partridge recommendations.
Fred
> -Original Message-
> From: Int-area On Behalf Of Templin (US), Fred L
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 2:33 PM
> To: Tom Herbert
> Cc: Joel Halpern ; int-area
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] [EXTERNAL]
,UDP} checksums would not be used to cover the whole
transport layer
payload. So, better to make some use out of those fields to carry header-only
checksums.
Fred
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Herbert
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 1:57 PM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L
14, 2023 12:55 PM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L
> Cc: Templin (US), Fred L ; Joel Halpern
> ; int-area
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: A new link service model for the
> Internet (IP Parcels and Advanced Jumbos)
>
> EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.
>
&
-delivery is possible and so probably better to detect
it as early as possible.
Fred
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Herbert
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 12:00 PM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L
> Cc: Templin (US), Fred L ; Joel
> Halpern ; int-area a...@ietf.org>
: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 11:02 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L
> Cc: Templin (US), Fred L ; Joel
> Halpern ; int-area a...@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: A new link service model for the
> Internet (IP Parcels and Advanced Jumbos)
>
> EXT email
and covers
only header fields and no data octets. The reason for this is that the IP
parcel and advanced jumbo
data segments each have their own CRCs for integrity verification.
Fred
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Herbert
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 10:02 AM
> To: Templin
Of Templin (US), Fred L
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 7:28 AM
To: Tom Herbert
Cc: Joel Halpern ; int-area
Subject: Re: [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: A new link service model for the
Internet (IP Parcels and Advanced Jumbos)
Tom, the IP parcel / advanced jumbo header checksum is on the same order
That is a useful link, Andy – thank you for that.
Fred
From: Andrew G. Malis
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 4:08 AM
To: Templin (US), Fred L
Cc: Tom Herbert ; int-area
Subject: Re: [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: A new link service model for the
Internet (IP Parcels and Advanced Jumbos)
EXT
ginal Message-
> From: Bless, Roland (TM)
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 11:40 PM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] A new link service model for the Internet
> (IP Parcels and Advanced Jumbos)
>
> EXT emai
to verify the IP addresses and {TCP,UDP} port numbers if they
receive a parcel that
was flagged as a CRC error by lower layers – that is all.
Thanks - Fred
From: Tom Herbert
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 3:38 PM
To: Templin (US), Fred L
Cc: Joel Halpern ; int-area
Subject: Re: [Int-area
To: Templin (US), Fred L
Cc: Robinson, Herbie ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: A new link service model for the
Internet (IP Parcels and Advanced Jumbos)
EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.
Fred,
MD5 is insecure, see RFC 9155 for the details.
Cheers,
Andy
Thank you for this – useful insights, and appreciated.
Fred
From: Robinson, Herbie
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 3:25 PM
To: Templin (US), Fred L
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: A new link service model for the
Internet (IP Parcels and Advanced Jumbos)
EXT
opinions.
Fred
From: Templin (US), Fred L
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 2:27 PM
To: 'Robinson, Herbie'
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: A new link service model for the
Internet (IP Parcels and Advanced Jumbos)
I don’t mind entertaining alternatives to MD5 – SHA1
-capable path to the final destination.
Fred
> -Original Message-
> From: Joel Halpern
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 2:53 PM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] A new link service model for the Internet
> (IP
alpern
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:59 PM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] A new link service model for the Internet
> (IP Parcels and Advanced Jumbos)
>
> EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.
>
I don’t mind entertaining alternatives to MD5 – SHA1?
I looked, but could not find a standard for CRC128 – maybe doesn’t exist?
Fred
From: Robinson, Herbie
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 2:25 PM
To: Templin (US), Fred L
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: A new link
org>> On
Behalf Of Tom Herbert
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 3:39 PM
To: Templin (US), Fred L
mailto:Fred.L.Templin=40boeing@dmarc.ietf.org>>
Cc: int-area@ietf.org<mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] A new link service model for the Internet
(IP
the CRC calculations as they have always done as long as there is a way to
get the receiver
to deliver packets that contain FEC errors to IP instead of dropping them
unconditionally.
Fred
From: Tom Herbert
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 2:02 PM
To: Templin (US), Fred L
Cc: Templin (US), Fred
Hi, thank you for this but the minutes that tried to capture what was said in
my talk
have some distortions that need to be clarified:
“Fred Templin presented graphs showing that on a 100GB/s point-to-point
Ethernet link between two machines connected back-to-back, Licklider
Transmission
Hi Tom,
On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 1:11 PM Templin (US), Fred L
wrote:
>
> Hi Tom, see below for responses:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Int-area On Behalf Of Tom Herbert
> > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 12:39 PM
> > To: Templin (US), Fred L
>
Hi Tom, see below for responses:
> -Original Message-
> From: Int-area On Behalf Of Tom Herbert
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 12:39 PM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] A new link service model for the Inter
Here is something everyone should read and become familiar with taken from
Section 5 of the latest
version of "IP Parcels and Advanced Jumbos":
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-intarea-parcels/
A new link service model is offered that will be essential for supporting
Hello, we ran out of time during this talk today and some comments were made at
the microphone
afterwards for which there was no time for follow-up. To address a couple of
the comments:
Comment: Fragmentation is fragile on the open Internet
Response: Yes, and that is documented in [RFC8900].
-Original Message-
From: I-D-Announce On Behalf Of
internet-dra...@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2023 1:10 PM
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Subject: I-D Action: draft-templin-intarea-ipid-ext-05.txt
Internet-Draft draft-templin-intarea-ipid-ext-05.txt is now available.
Title:
ent Header is present.
For IPv4, I want to continue to use the 16-bit Identification the way it has
always been used,
but then also include a 2-octet or 6-octet extension. The way to do that is
with an IPv4 option.
Fred
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 8:51 AM Templin (US), Fred L
> wr
eh.
I have thought many times about adopting IPv6 extension headers in
IPv4 packets and have proposed it several times with no uptake. An IPv4
option seems like a cleaner uptake for the IPv4 architecture.
Fred
> Tom
>
> >
> > Fred
> >
> > > -Original Message-
&
necessary.
Fred
> -Original Message-
> From: Int-area On Behalf Of Templin (US), Fred L
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2023 8:17 AM
> To: Tom Herbert ; Templin (US), Fred L
>
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] [IPv6] FW: I-D Action:
>
rdless, I now still do want to use hop-by-hop.
Fred
> -Original Message-----
> From: Templin (US), Fred L
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2023 8:11 AM
> To: 'Tom Herbert' ; Templin (US), Fred
> L
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [IPv6] [Int-area] FW
Tom, see below:
> Hi Fred,
>
> I don't see how the Hop-by-Hop Option can work. In IPv6, fragmentation
> is always end to end so a Hop-by-Hop Option really isn't appropriate.
> It should be a Destination Option, but then we'd have to have DestOps
> before the Frag header but after any Routing
-Original Message-
From: I-D-Announce On Behalf Of
internet-dra...@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 2:52 PM
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Subject: I-D Action: draft-templin-intarea-ipid-ext-04.txt
Internet-Draft draft-templin-intarea-ipid-ext-04.txt is now available.
Title:
"Identification Extension Options for the Internet Protocol" represents a first
step in fully
embracing the fragmentation and reassembly services that were intended as core
functions
for the Internet from the beginning. Together with "IP Parcels and Advanced
Jumbos", these
technologies support
email exploders acting up again…
Fred
From: Moderators
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2023 11:55 AM
To: int-area@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Cc: herbie.robin...@stratus.com; to...@strayalpha.com; Templin (US), Fred L
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Re: I-D Action: draft-templin-intarea-ipid-ext-00.txt
[Resending
-Original Message-
From: I-D-Announce On Behalf Of
internet-dra...@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 12:29 PM
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Subject: I-D Action: draft-templin-intarea-ipid-ext-00.txt
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title
-Original Message-
From: I-D-Announce On Behalf Of
internet-dra...@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 10:43 AM
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Subject: I-D Action: draft-templin-intarea-ipv4-idext-00.txt
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Hi, it has been a little while since I have sent an update about IP parcels but
see below for a new
draft version with some important updates.
This draft version now fully incorporates GSO/GRO in its API and protocol
description; it can
therefore be considered as a standards-track submission
Now would be a good time to have another look at IP parcels.
___
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
is acceptable if
that is all
that can be done for the time being. Is that something that can be done?
Thank you,
Fred
From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 2:12 AM
To: Templin (US), Fred L ; Juan Carlos Zuniga
(juzuniga) ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Next
nt of work still left to do. We have been at
this for decades and it is time to put all of that work into operational
practice.
Fred
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Herbert
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 10:22 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L
> Cc: Richard Li ; int-ar
now.
Fred
> -Original Message-
> From: Haoyu Song
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 9:04 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L ; Tom Herbert
>
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: About draft-templin-intarea-parcels
>
> EXT email: be m
November 09, 2022 9:22 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L
> Cc: Richard Li ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] About draft-templin-intarea-parcels
>
> EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 7:47 AM Templin (US), Fre
considerations where the necessary
codepoint allocations are requested. Does it need to be broken out into a small
companion draft the way SCHC did it?
Fred
From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2022 9:28 AM
To: Templin (US), Fred L ; Juan Carlos Zuniga
(juzuniga) ; int-area@ietf.org
I want to understand whether granting these allocations for SCHC would prevent
OMNI from receiving exactly the same three allocation types. If so, then we need
to ask the question of whether the codepoints should go to SCHC or OMNI. In my
view, OMNI should get the codepoints.
Fred
From: Int-area
Richard, thank you for your message. The intarea community must understand that
the live IP Parcels presentation given today was only a “roadmap” to a proper
presentation which could not be given due to time constraints. The charts shown
during the live presentation were skipped over quickly, but
Wassim and Juan, IP parcels (briefed at IETF113 and 114) have been implemented
and
I could give an implementation report. 20 minutes required.
From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wassim Haddad
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2022 3:27 PM
To: Internet Area
Cc:
here is called: “AERO”.
From: Robert Moskowitz [mailto:rgm-i...@htt-consult.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2022 1:42 PM
To: Templin (US), Fred L ; Jens Finkhaeuser
; Luigi Iannone
Cc: int-area
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] Rebooting Addressing Discussion
Sorry, Fred, I responded
> Can we actually produce some wider ranging solutions than HIP/LISP/etal?
There is AERO/OMNI which IMHO are wider ranging solutions. If folks haven’t
looked at them recently they probably should now (IP parcels too).
From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert
Hi, an update to IP parcels is now published, including implementation status.
-Original Message-
From: I-D-Announce [mailto:i-d-announce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
internet-dra...@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2022 4:10 PM
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Subject: I-D Action:
and OMNI are good works and very likeable. Conversely, I am not liking
seeing these
fearmongering myths propagated by you and others as though they were truths.
Fred
From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2022 10:56 AM
To: Templin (US), Fred L
Cc: Juan Carlos Zuniga
] On Behalf Of Templin (US),
Fred L
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2022 6:44 AM
To: Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga) ;
int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for WG adoption of draft-templin-intarea-parcels-10
FYI, a new draft version is posted with the following updates:
1) Senders encodes the number
FYI, a new draft version is posted with the following updates:
1) Senders encodes the number of segments included in the Jumbo Payload header
so receivers
can accurately determine packaging sizes.
2) Excuses OAL intermediate nodes from having to perform parcel sub-dividing or
re-combining.
ave in the
current practice allowing a path forward for future innovation. But, parcels are
still good even for the smallish MTUs in widescale deployment today.
Fred
From: Joel Halpern [mailto:jmh.dir...@joelhalpern.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 7:44 AM
To: Templin (US), Fred L
Cc: int-a
Richard, I am finally returning to answer your questions from much earlier on in
this thread. See below for responses:
Thanks - Fred
1. The text “multiple upper layer protocol segments” is ambiguous. It seems
that you really mean “multiple segments from ‘the same’ upper layer protocol”,
to fragmentation and
reassembly.
But, let’s not get so hung up on the middlebox question that we forget the
benefits
for end-to-end.
Fred
From: Joel Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 4:02 PM
To: Templin (US), Fred L
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Re
nday, July 11, 2022 2:57 PM
To: Templin (US), Fred L
Cc: Richard Li ; Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga)
; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] Call for WG adoption of
draft-templin-intarea-parcels-10
EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 2
OMNI source and destination even
though there may be many 10’s or even 100’s of ordinary IP routers on the path.
And, again, this is not a strict reassembly case – instead, it is an
opportunistic
“combine if convenient; else forward” swift decision.
Thanks - Fred
From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@
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
Richard, thank you for this. It appears to be a very comprehensive review set of
questions and is deserving of an equally comprehensive response. I will need a
bit
of time to internalize all of your questions in order to get back to you with an
adequate response which I will post to the list.
Thanks,
Fred
From: Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga) [mailto:juzun...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2022 3:45 PM
To: Templin (US), Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: IntArea WG Minutes IETF 113
EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.
Hi Fred,
Thanks for the review
Juan Carlos & Wassim – see below for corrections to the minutes:
Thank you - Fred
1. IP Parcels - Fred Templin
draft-templin-intarea-parcels - 15 min
* Fred: packet is the retransmission unit in case of lost. Have a packet
of packets.
>> This is incorrect; what I said was that a
ess
of the size of the restricting link.
Fred
> -Original Message-
> From: John Gilmore [mailto:g...@toad.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 3:48 PM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L
> Cc: Joel M. Halpern ; int-area
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] IP Parcels & ju
ay, March 24, 2022 3:08 PM
> To: Joel M. Halpern
> Cc: Templin (US), Fred L ; int-area
>
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] IP Parcels improves performance for end systems
>
> Right, moving the problem does not fix the problem and changes the
> cost/benefit ratio as well.
>
&g
> -Original Message-
> From: Haoyu Song [mailto:haoyu.s...@futurewei.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 1:42 PM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L ; Joel M. Halpern
>
> Cc: int-area
> Subject: RE: [Int-area] IP Parcels improves performance for end systems
>
> Understood.
@joelhalpern.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 1:38 PM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L
> Cc: int-area
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] IP Parcels improves performance for end systems
>
> I understood that. I just don't see the benefit.
>
> We have a host. It is assembling data t
nal Message-
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 12:41 PM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L
> Cc: int-area
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] IP Parcels improves performance for end
> systems
>
> EXT email: be m
ay, March 24, 2022 12:27 PM
> To: Joel M. Halpern ; Templin (US), Fred L
>
> Cc: int-area
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Int-area] IP Parcels improves performance for end
> systems
>
> EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.
>
>
>
> I have the similar con
986.
Fred
> -Original Message-
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 12:11 PM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L
> Cc: int-area
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] IP Parcels improves performance for end
> systems
>
> EXT e
Hi Joel,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 11:41 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L
> Cc: int-area
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] IP Parcels improves performance for end systems
>
> This exchan
inal Message-
> From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin (US),
> Fred L
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 9:45 AM
> To: Tom Herbert
> Cc: int-area ; Eggert, Lars ;
> l...@eggert.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] IP Parcels improves performance for end syst
Tom, I missed this from your previous message:
> > Actually, my assertion wasn't good to begin with because for IPv6 even if
> > UDP
> > checksums are turned off the OMNI encapsulation layer includes a checksum
> > that ensures the integrity of the IPv6 header. UDP checksums off for IPv6
> >
Hi Tom - responses below:
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 9:09 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L
> Cc: Eggert, Lars ; int-area ;
> l...@eggert.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] IP Parcels improve
Luigi, I did an equally poor job addressing your question. The deployment model
for
IP Parcel-capable links begins at the extreme network edges; not in the network
core.
The core network can continue to function as it always has with whatever link
MTUs
are already in place, and the OMNI link
Tom - see below:
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 6:22 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L
> Cc: Eggert, Lars ; int-area ;
> l...@eggert.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] IP Parcels improves perfor
GSO/GRO into an IETF standard, plus it
doesn’t
work for IPv6 at all where there is no IP ID included by default. IP Parcels
addresses
all of these points, and can be made into a standard.
Fred
From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 9:37 AM
To: Templin (US), Fred
Hi Tom,
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 6:19 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L
> Cc: Eggert, Lars ; int-area@ietf.org; l...@eggert.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] IP Parcels improves performan
Tom,
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 1:47 PM
> To: Robinson, Herbie
> Cc: Templin (US), Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: IP Parcels improves performance for
>
Thanks for these thoughts, Herbie, and see below for follow-up:
Fred
> -Original Message-
> From: Robinson, Herbie [mailto:herbie.robin...@stratus.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 12:58 PM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: IP Parcels impro
Tom, see below:
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 10:00 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L
> Cc: Eggert, Lars ; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] IP Parcels improves performance for end systems
&
Lars, I did a poor job of answering your question. One of the most important
aspects of
IP Parcels in relation to TSO and GSO/GRO is that transports get to use a full
4MB buffer
instead of the 64KB limit in current practices. This is possible due to the IP
Parcel jumbo
payload option
AERO/OMNI use several address types with varying uniqueness properties:
1) Globally-unique or unique private IPv6 or IPv4 addresses that are configured
from
Mobile Network Prefixes (MNPs) that are administratively assigned to a node.
2) Administratively-assigned Unique Local Addresses (ULA)
For those who have been tracking the IP Parcels discussion, please have another
look
at the document. There is now a section on "Parcel Path Qualification" that I
think
satisfies the incremental deployment issue - but, I am interested in your
comments.
Fred
1 - 100 of 230 matches
Mail list logo
