Subject: FWD: Last Call: Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks to Proposed Standard

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 06:47:02 -0500

Any comments?

------- Forwarded Message

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
To: IETF-Announce: ;
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:50:14 -0500
SUBJECT: Last Call: Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394
         Networks to Proposed Standard
Reply-to: [email-masked]

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.

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
[email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by March 5, 2001.

Files can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-1394-01.txt

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

------- End of Forwarded Message

---

From: Peter Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:50:04 -0800

><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]

---

From: Richard Akerman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:34:45 -0400

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

---

From: Kenji Fujisawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:51:44 +0900

Peter,

>efficient IP1394 protocol should be able to effect 85%!

My implementation shows around 190Mbps by TCP using 400Mbps bus (OHCI).
(it still may be less than the desire though.)

>an interrupt at the receiving system.

I think it is an implementation issue and every Ethernet vendor is inventing
how it handles interrupts. Why we can not do the same thing?

>The resultant inefficiency at the

There might be an extension for improvement in the future,
but I think Draft-IETF-IPNGWG-1394-01 can be a base as well as RFC2734.

Best Regards,

Kenji Fujisawa