From: Nivedita Singhvi <niv@us.ibm.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Cc: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, Jon Grimm <jgrimm2@us.ibm.com>,
davem@redhat.com, sri@us.ibm.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: SCTP path mtu support needs some ip layer support.
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:21:59 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3E232DF7.4D68D57C@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20030113210708.GA328@wotan.suse.de
> > fragmentation to retransmit any data bits. If SCTP is not ablet to do this,
> > then you should not support pmtu discovery at all like most of people make
> > for UDP or to follow UDP pattern, fragmenting frames when their size exceeds
> > mtu. It is not necessary to cripple ip_queue_xmit calling conventions
> > to make this, just add a flag to socket to clear DF on oversized
> > frames.
>
> Some recent incidents have shown that ip fragmentation/defragmention
> at gigabit speed is rather worthless. The reason is that it has no PAWS
> and the 16bit ipid can wrap many times in the standard reassembly
> timeout, leading to lots of misassembled packets on a busy network.
> Mostly that can be catched by computing the transport layer
> checksum, but often enough a misassembled packet can slip through.
> While in SCTP it may work a bit better because it supports stronger
> checksums (but only optionally afaik) it is still too dangerous.
> So in short clearing DF is near always a bug these days.
>
> -Andi
I'd second that and say that its absolutely a must that SCTP support
path MTU as much as possible, and limit the fragmenting to the unresegmentable
queued stuff only, which should only happen if the MTU changes,
rare enough that it wont be a big deal, and with limited number of
segments affected..
thanks,
Nivedita
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-01-13 21:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <3E1CCD72.6020100@us.ibm.com>
2003-01-13 20:48 ` SCTP path mtu support needs some ip layer support kuznet
2003-01-13 21:07 ` Andi Kleen
2003-01-13 21:21 ` Nivedita Singhvi [this message]
2003-01-13 21:25 ` kuznet
2003-01-13 23:34 ` Jon Grimm
2003-01-13 22:54 ` Sridhar Samudrala
2003-01-13 23:03 ` Mika Liljeberg
2003-01-14 0:56 ` Sridhar Samudrala
2003-01-14 6:46 ` Mika Liljeberg
2003-01-13 23:22 ` kuznet
2003-01-14 0:49 ` Sridhar Samudrala
2003-01-14 1:22 ` kuznet
2003-01-14 18:44 ` Sridhar Samudrala
2003-01-14 20:11 ` Mika Liljeberg
2003-01-14 22:15 ` Sridhar Samudrala
2003-01-14 21:16 ` kuznet
2003-01-08 23:04 Sridhar Samudrala
2003-01-08 23:06 ` David S. Miller
2003-01-08 22:48 ` Jon Grimm
2003-01-08 23:45 ` David S. Miller
2003-01-08 23:56 ` Nivedita Singhvi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3E232DF7.4D68D57C@us.ibm.com \
--to=niv@us.ibm.com \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=jgrimm2@us.ibm.com \
--cc=kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=sri@us.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).