> On Mar 19, 2020, at 3:11 PM, Jon Maloy <jma...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/18/20 12:04 AM, Joseph Touch wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I’m quite confused by this request.
>>
>> It seems like they either have an implementation issue (in Linux).
> Linux "passthru" GSO is implemented so that any IP based protocol which wants
> to benefit
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> from it needs its own IP protocol number. Doing this generically through the
> already existing
> UDP protocol number is not possible, because GSO on a host must be
> implemented
> specifically (e.g., regarding segmentation) per carried protocol. That is
> just a fact, and not
> an implementation issue.
How is that not exactly an implementation issue?
....
> IP addresses are no good in the *user API*, because they are location bound.
> That is also why DNS was invented, I believe.
DNS names are intended to be a human-rememberable alias to an IP address. They
do not indicate a location any more than an IP address does or does not.
…
> Whatever the viewpoints, TIPC is currently what it is,
As is IP...
> and rather than focusing on the motivation
> for certain implementation choices and how they work, I think IETF should
> consider the fact
> that this is a well-established service used by dozens of small and big
> companies, running high-volume
> traffic at hundreds of telco sites around the globe. They should also
> consider that TIPC has
> existed as a stable and well-maintained implementation in all major Linux
> distros for many years.
I won’t focus on the bad decisions in TIPC if you won’t ask for a protocol
number -deal?
Joe
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
