W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 20:27:40 +0000
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>, Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, K.Morgan@iaea.org, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <11185.1403728060@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CAP+FsNfKBazaKL4a8PE8mMtCdFhKj1tyXQ-6twAF=rW_X9Ehzg@mail.gmail.com>
, Roberto Peon writes:

>I don't see how CONTINUATION makes a hardware implementation more
>difficult, though?
>It doesn't at all change the buffer management.

It sure does:  The "magic" blocking of CONTINUATION frames into one
unit where the END_* bits don't actually mean END_* at all will
seriously complicate a hardware transmit-side implementation.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2014 20:28:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC