Subject: Re: FWD: Last Call: Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394Ne tworks to Proposed Standard

From: "Hattig, Myron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:52:17 -0800

It appears I'm not the only one asking this question. It has been 4 years
since this discussion concluded last time. -myron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Akerman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 2:35 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: FWD: Last Call: Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE
> 1394Networks to Proposed Standard
>
>
> Does anyone have references to any published work or websites that
> measure current IP1394 performance?
>
> -- Richard Akerman
> [email-masked]
>
> graduate Jini/Linux/IEEE-1394/IP1394 project site:
>
> http://www.cs.dal.ca/~akerman/gradproject/
>
> Mike Teener wrote:
> >
> > I think we should hold off on this. There have been
> considerable problems
> > with the performance of IP1394 in PCs and other OHCI-based
> platforms due to
> > the FIFO-model data transfer (forces an interrupt for each
> received 1394
> > packet). I think we should consider using a direct memory model data
> > transfer in the future (OHCI is optimized for this), and
> IPv6 offers us an
> > opportunity for a changeover.
> >
> > =============================================================
> > Michael D. Johas Teener
> > Chief Technical Officer, Zayante, Inc.
> > 269 Mt. Hermon Rd. #200, Scotts Valley, CA 95066-4000, USA
> > voice: +1-831-461-4901  fax: +1-831-461-1394 http://www.zayante.com
> > mailto: [email-masked] PGP IDs: RSA 0x177754E1, D-H/DSS 0x3179D202
>
> Peter Johansson wrote:
> >
> > At 06:47 AM 2/20/01, Thomas Narten wrote:
> >
> > >The IESG has received a request from the IPNG Working
> Group to consider
> > >Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks
> > ><draft-ietf-ipngwg-1394-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard.
> >
> > I suggest that the forward progress of the
> Draft-IETF-IPNGWG-1394-01 to
> > Proposed Standard be delayed to permit the formation of a new IP1394
> > Working Group. In broad terms, the charter of the IP1394
> working group
> > would be twofold: a) the revision of IP over 1394 protocols
> to permit
> > significantly increased end-to-end efficiency and b) the
> extension of IP
> > over 1394 protocols to include IPv6. With respect to the
> second element of
> > scope, I think the working group would not start afresh but
> would utilize
> > all of the appropriate components of the valuable effort
> already contained
> > within Draft-IETF-IPNGWG-1394-01. It is the first element
> of scope that is
> > the driving reason for forming a new working group.
> >
> > I do not presume to speak for others (I hope that major
> operating systems
> > vendors will speak for themselves), but I know from
> conversations that both
> > Apple and Microsoft are seriously concerned with the relatively poor
> > performance characteristics of IPv4 over IEEE 1394. The
> performance is
> > relatively poor when one examines the practical throughput
> of a 100, 200 or
> > 400 Mbps IEEE 1394 bus and compares it with the effective end-to-end
> > throughput achieved by IP1394. When I say "practical"
> throughput, I do not
> > mean a theoretical maximum but an empirical value
> observable when other
> > protocols well-suited to mass data transfer (e.g., SBP-2)
> are scrutinized.
> > For example, the BEST end-to-end throughput on a 400 Mbps
> bus observed to
> > date is a wretched 100 Mbps. Instead of the 25% efficiency
> achieved, a more
> > efficient IP1394 protocol should be able to effect 85%!
> >
> > The source of the problem is that each IP datagram (or
> fragment) generates
> > an interrupt at the receiving system. The resultant
> inefficiency at the
> > receiving host hobbles the effective throughput. This
> behavior is intrinsic
> > in RFC 2734. I suggest that a new working group be
> chartered to examine
> > this problem and redesign portions of the IP1394 protocol
> to improve its
> > efficiency.
> >
> > Because Draft-IETF-IPNGWG-1394-01 is based upon RFC 2734
> and inherits its
> > problems, I suggest it would be prudent to delay advancement of the
> > Internet Draft to a proposed. The efforts of a new IP1394
> working group are
> > likely to render some of the provisions of the current work moot.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Peter Johansson
> >
> > Congruent Software, Inc.
> > 98 Colorado Avenue
> > Berkeley, CA  94707
> >
> > (510) 527-3926
> > (510) 527-3856 FAX
> >
> > [email-masked]
>