IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Insertion of IPv6 Segment Routing Headers in a Controlled Domain

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Tue, 04 April 2017 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B584B12894E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 08:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MLD1phbfDZA6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 08:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF188128C82 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 08:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 023BB9096C5; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:04:49 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 11:04:48 -0400
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Insertion of IPv6 Segment Routing Headers in a Controlled Domain
Message-ID: <20170404150448.GA40162@verdi>
References: <CAO42Z2y2+ouu+M_UW0PbY-bRpg+Ev0LTqYBjFj9FXFoYoaOiRA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2waVguuYECWsdetAwZnL8ZH9bq_1dsYnd8dXKxv63B7DQ@mail.gmail.com> <A4828BE0-CCDF-4410-A67F-E06B18838CE8@steinbergnet.net> <CAO42Z2y3dP_WHH-Fa8DVzg0fR0=NjeFDy9HW46QWL3pTyStfqQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+b+ERk=v6OeADCjzvMSGEnqibv_uU1_78f9WGgKFCpXZD6Ovg@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2x2pOcLkoyfLukeUt-inKUjBtwyL1y6qhB9XT6s8CXpzQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2x2pOcLkoyfLukeUt-inKUjBtwyL1y6qhB9XT6s8CXpzQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/08jKXuNa3sfj0kLDyAz2kH0GWHY>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 15:04:54 -0000

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> If you think fiddling with packet structure and size in the network is
> perfectly fine, then I wonder if you've had any operational experience
> with troubleshooing NAT, implementation bugs or devices that partially
> failure such that they partially corrupt packets.

   I admit to no such experience within IPv6.

   Can you point out anyone publishing such experience?

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email