Change Status of RFC 2675 to Historic
draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-05-08
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
6man                                                            T. Jones
Internet-Draft                                              G. Fairhurst
Intended status: Informational                    University of Aberdeen
Expires: 9 November 2019                                      8 May 2019

                 Change Status of RFC 2675 to Historic
                  draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675-00

Abstract

   This document changes the status of RFC2675, IPv6 Jumbograms, from
   Proposed Standard to Historic.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 9 November 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
   as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Jones & Fairhurst        Expires 9 November 2019                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    Change Status of RFC 2675 to Historic         May 2019

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   4.  RFCs Referencing Jumbograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Appendix B.  Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Appendix C.  Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   [RFC2675] defines the IPv6 Jumbo Payload Option, which enables
   Jumbograms, IPv6 datagrams that carry a payload greater than 65,535
   octets.  Jumbograms have seen little deployment in the open Internet
   and there are currently no known active Internet deployments.

   Note: "Jumboframe" is a commonly term that is used to describe frames
   that exceed 1500 bytes in length, and is different to an IPv6 Jumbo
   Payload Option, or Jumbogram.

   When published, this document changes the status of RFC2675 to
   historic.

2.  Conventions and Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Rationale

   Jumbograms have seen little deployment, A Roadmap for Transmission
   Control Protocol (TCP) Specification Documents ([RFC7414]) explains
   some of the protocol reasons behind this:

Jones & Fairhurst        Expires 9 November 2019                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft    Change Status of RFC 2675 to Historic         May 2019

   "This document states that jumbograms are to only be used when it can be
    guaranteed that all receiving nodes, including each router in the
    end-to-end path, will support jumbograms.  If even a single node that does
    not support jumbograms is attached to a local network, then no host on
    that network may use jumbograms.  This explains why jumbogram use has been
    rare, and why this document is considered a performance optimization and
    not part of TCP over IPv6's basic functionality."

   Over time, the IPv6 Node Requirements document series has reported on
   the deployment of Jumbograms, as follows:

   *  RFC4294: "IPv6 Jumbograms "[RFC-2675]" MAY be supported."
Show full document text