| < draft-ietf-ipngwg-jumbograms-00.txt | draft-ietf-ipngwg-jumbograms-01.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| INTERNET-DRAFT D. Borman, Berkeley Software Design | INTERNET-DRAFT D. Borman, Berkeley Software Design | |||
| February 26, 1999 S. Deering, Cisco | June 25, 1999 S. Deering, Cisco | |||
| Obsoletes: RFC2147 R. Hinden, Nokia | Obsoletes: RFC2147 R. Hinden, Nokia | |||
| IPv6 Jumbograms | IPv6 Jumbograms | |||
| <draft-ietf-ipngwg-jumbograms-00.txt> | <draft-ietf-ipngwg-jumbograms-01.txt> | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with | This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with | |||
| all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026 [STD-PROC]. | all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026 [STD-PROC]. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | |||
| other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- | other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- | |||
| Drafts. | Drafts. | |||
| skipping to change at page 1, line 32 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 31 ¶ | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt | http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt | |||
| The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | |||
| This Internet Draft will expire on August 26, 1999. | This Internet Draft will expire on December 25, 1999. | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| A "jumbogram" is an IPv6 packet containing a payload longer than | A "jumbogram" is an IPv6 packet containing a payload longer than | |||
| 65,535 octets. This document describes the IPv6 Jumbo Payload | 65,535 octets. This document describes the IPv6 Jumbo Payload | |||
| option, which provides the means of specifying such large payload | option, which provides the means of specifying such large payload | |||
| lengths. It also describes the changes needed to TCP and UDP to make | lengths. It also describes the changes needed to TCP and UDP to make | |||
| use of jumbograms. | use of jumbograms. | |||
| Jumbograms are relevant only to IPv6 nodes that may be attached to | Jumbograms are relevant only to IPv6 nodes that may be attached to | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 47 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 47 ¶ | |||
| link that do not support the Jumbo Payload option and it can not be | link that do not support the Jumbo Payload option and it can not be | |||
| guaranteed that the Jumbo Payload option will not be sent to those | guaranteed that the Jumbo Payload option will not be sent to those | |||
| nodes. | nodes. | |||
| The UDP header [UDP] has a 16-bit Length field which prevents it from | The UDP header [UDP] has a 16-bit Length field which prevents it from | |||
| making use of jumbograms, and though the TCP header [TCP] does not | making use of jumbograms, and though the TCP header [TCP] does not | |||
| have a Length field, both the TCP MSS option and the TCP Urgent field | have a Length field, both the TCP MSS option and the TCP Urgent field | |||
| are constrained to 16 bits. This document specifies some simple | are constrained to 16 bits. This document specifies some simple | |||
| enhancements to TCP and UDP to enable them to make use of jumbograms. | enhancements to TCP and UDP to enable them to make use of jumbograms. | |||
| An implementation of TCP or UDP on an IPv6 node that supports the | An implementation of TCP or UDP on an IPv6 node that supports the | |||
| Jumbo Payload option MUST include the enhancements specified here. | Jumbo Payload option must include the enhancements specified here. | |||
| Note: The 16 bit checksum used by UDP and TCP becomes less accurate | ||||
| as the length of the data being checksummed is increased. | ||||
| Application designers may want to take this into consideration. | ||||
| 1.1 Document History | 1.1 Document History | |||
| This document merges and updates material that was previously | This document merges and updates material that was previously | |||
| published in two separate documents: | published in two separate documents: | |||
| - The specification of the Jumbo Payload option previously | - The specification of the Jumbo Payload option previously | |||
| appeared as part of the IPv6 specification in RFC 1883. RFC | appeared as part of the IPv6 specification in RFC 1883. RFC | |||
| 1883 has been superseded by RFC 2460, which no longer includes | 1883 has been superseded by RFC 2460, which no longer includes | |||
| specification of the Jumbo Payload option. | specification of the Jumbo Payload option. | |||
| - The specification of TCP and UDP enhancements to support | - The specification of TCP and UDP enhancements to support | |||
| jumbograms previously appeared as RFC 2147. RFC 2147 is | jumbograms previously appeared as RFC 2147. RFC 2147 is | |||
| obsoleted by this document. | obsoleted by this document. | |||
| 1.2 Requirements | 1.2 Requirements | |||
| The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, | The keywords must, must not, required, shall, shall not, should, | |||
| SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, if and where they appear | should not, recommended, may, and optional, if and where they appear | |||
| in this document, are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS]. | in this document, are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS]. | |||
| 2. Format of the Jumbo Payload Option | 2. Format of the Jumbo Payload Option | |||
| The Jumbo Payload option is carried in an IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options | The Jumbo Payload option is carried in an IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options | |||
| header, immediately following the IPv6 header. This option has an | header, immediately following the IPv6 header. This option has an | |||
| alignment requirement of 4n + 2. (See [IPv6, Section 4.2] for | alignment requirement of 4n + 2. (See [IPv6, Section 4.2] for | |||
| discussion of option alignment.) The option has the following | discussion of option alignment.) The option has the following | |||
| format: | format: | |||
| skipping to change at page 8, line 19 ¶ | skipping to change at page 8, line 19 ¶ | |||
| 4719 Weston Hills Drive | 4719 Weston Hills Drive | |||
| Eagan, MN 55123 | Eagan, MN 55123 | |||
| USA | USA | |||
| Stephen E. Deering phone: +1 408 527 8213 | Stephen E. Deering phone: +1 408 527 8213 | |||
| Cisco Systems, Inc. email: deering@cisco.com | Cisco Systems, Inc. email: deering@cisco.com | |||
| 170 West Tasman Drive | 170 West Tasman Drive | |||
| San Jose, CA 95134-1706 | San Jose, CA 95134-1706 | |||
| USA | USA | |||
| Robert M. Hinden phone: +1 408 990 2004 | Robert M. Hinden phone: +1 650 625 2004 | |||
| Nokia email: hinden@iprg.nokia.com | Nokia email: hinden@iprg.nokia.com | |||
| 232 Java Drive | 313 Fairchild Drive | |||
| Sunnyvale, CA 94089 | Mountain View, CA 94043 | |||
| USA | USA | |||
| 8. References | 8. References | |||
| [ICMPv6] Conta, A., S. Deering, ICMP for the Internet Protocol | [ICMPv6] Conta, A., S. Deering, ICMP for the Internet Protocol | |||
| Version 6 (IPv6), RFC 2463, December 1998. | Version 6 (IPv6), RFC 2463, December 1998. | |||
| [IPv6] Deering, S., R. Hinden, Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) | [IPv6] Deering, S., R. Hinden, Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) | |||
| Specification, RFC 2460, December 1998. | Specification, RFC 2460, December 1998. | |||
| skipping to change at line 354 ¶ | skipping to change at page 9, line 4 ¶ | |||
| [STD-PROC] Bradner, S., The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3, | [STD-PROC] Bradner, S., The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3, | |||
| RFC 2026, October 1996. | RFC 2026, October 1996. | |||
| [TCP] Postel, J., Transmission Control Protocol, RFC 793, | [TCP] Postel, J., Transmission Control Protocol, RFC 793, | |||
| September 1981. | September 1981. | |||
| [TCP-EXT] Jacobson, V., R. Braden, D. Borman, "TCP Extensions for | [TCP-EXT] Jacobson, V., R. Braden, D. Borman, "TCP Extensions for | |||
| High Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992. | High Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992. | |||
| [UDP] Postel, J., User Datagram Protocol, RFC 768, August 1980. | [UDP] Postel, J., User Datagram Protocol, RFC 768, August 1980. | |||
| 9. Changes from previous version of this draft | ||||
| Version 01 | ||||
| - Added note to introduction about reliability of 16 bit TCP/UDP | ||||
| checksum w/ jumbograms. | ||||
| - Made case of "must"'s consistent. | ||||
| End of changes. 9 change blocks. | ||||
| 10 lines changed or deleted | 13 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||