On 3/24/2015 1:47 PM, Yuchung Cheng wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Wesley Eddy <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 3/23/2015 6:22 PM, Joe Touch wrote: >>>>> Well, SACK? But, I guess common cases will be a combination of >>>>> extensions, not a specific one. >>> SACK can use as much space as it is given, AFAICT ;-) >> >> >> That's right, and there have been multiple studies that even >> showed it was useful to be able to carry a larger number of >> SACK blocks. > Please share the studies. > > After today's meeting, my concerns are > > 1. EDO's incompatibility with HW/SW offload. I am positive we can > probably fix the SW-offload but pessimistic about changes in > HW-offload.
All new options are incompatible with offload that doesn't properly handle options it doesn't understand. In the case of GRO, the software SHOULD handle EDO without error, even if it cannot achieve a performance improvement. The current behavior is clearly incorrect. > 2. Salvage operation when middleboxes strip EDO randomly in the middle > of connection There is no solution to that either, except to develop a mechanism inside the data plane of TCP. At that point, the option would be decoupled from the header, defeating the purpose of most options (which are segment-specific). Joe _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
