Differential D19960
Remove support for RFC2675 Authored by thj on Apr 18 2019, 5:05 PM. Tags None Referenced Files
Details Remove support for RFC2675, the jumbo payload option. This option was intended This is a first pass at removing jumbo, there may be more digging to remove all Because valid traffic requires packet sizes greater than IP6_MAXPACKET I am I have run iperf tests with v6 traffic to confirm that nothing else breaks.
Diff Detail
Event TimelineComment Actions I'l resign as a reviewer from this as removing valid RFC support seems counter-intuitive to me just because currently to your best knowledge no device supporting it exists. Someone should write the draft first to deprecate this and see if people stand up and then remove it. Looking at the code changes seems to make it hide under "burn bridges" or something harder. So I guess if someone wants to resurrect it it'll be in the Attic. Comment Actions Burn it with fire! This code is not used, and pretty much can't be used, so let's get rid of it. Many years ago I got confused by this code. Let's save others from that. Comment Actions I agree with @bz about ideal process. I also agree with @kristof about the practical implications of this feature. :-) Might a valid way forward be to write a draft, propose it, and see if anyone complains by the next IETF (July) before purging this? Comment Actions It could be used. I know hardware which could do 1-4 MB at least. It's research and not deployed... Comment Actions I will happily co-author it though I still believe large packets will be a thing one day ... Comment Actions Maybe a very short ID to move RFC 2675 to historic... See RFC7805 for a ,much more complex example of such a document. Comment Actions That said, there are vendors who list it (maybe not on the forwarding plane) but as RFC compliance supporting it: Comment Actions As you hint at, I'm fairly certain that Juniper lists that because of control plane support, and not because they have production hardware that will actually support that on the forwarding plane. However, someone at Juniper might be able to comment more definitively. Comment Actions I am okay with Jonathan's suggested plan. We sit on this and write a short draft to move rfc2675 to historic. We get a feel from the ietf (I suggest 6MAN) and act based on that. @bz I will do a first draft of an ID and circulate. Looking at https://www.rfc-editor.org/status_changes.php I think an Information document can update that status of a PS. Is that correct @tuexen ? Comment Actions We wrote an ID: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675-00 discussion may appear on this thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/FhaFsm9DSMkUfpDbQTPh-RbYybM Comment Actions So, reading the comments on the 6man WG, it appears that noone has big concerns around making RFC2675 historic? Will you follow up with the formal process of getting the draft adopted as WG item, and eventually dragged over WGLC? |