Re: HBH Option Header Configuration (draft-hinden-6man-hbh-processing)

Brian E Carpenter <> Tue, 08 June 2021 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18DD33A3D4E for <>; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 13:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c_PdtSOj7qNw for <>; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 13:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 709843A3D4C for <>; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 13:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id o12so7978435plk.8 for <>; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 13:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=B0IQjd/CW3puZjiEBXhArfL7JvcDc7wawdE9tCdo+Aw=; b=HDbJAx0qObMAGmXDWtKO3yUawlOtW97NdtToGbdA4wAKO5viMCjff7WUetphObPwrB jVff5qXHG8UM6igvBYtn2y/95hs8NLqJOLFtCT4AB94ian0ZiT9RUB2C6W+l1ZYYTRPm 75l8Bu/Qel1bKPDVjb3yvOk+I53c3GOviInMVWtTKGZjMj2PV/icpFLtPVj4oYSB+Klk q2/e8D7UWY9xfugtOZIVaAFqkzL/8nlWtHcD+9Fz2ZNJl1UnfbamgFYNMA3QEOCLOACa C7HYS8jriNv2bpGlF2RlWOEi2I1tEoVZQkG7OlTHDh+gi2XPSbzvYd1ia03lU4uCdGan 1/Iw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=B0IQjd/CW3puZjiEBXhArfL7JvcDc7wawdE9tCdo+Aw=; b=ajBYb0MW5oTv1cm6hewBcNoaJ5nt1Qe+Crp2p5zQFx8wa03BqNHP/rOARP/XOqMK/j f2srdnoJNH8DP4oku5U1uBLhcaBWcuSwnNxfZkTAMWKFCjcTIQom5l+dLK7uPm80U3Ul kSe5EGnyR9iN+vZmPlW0J/Mc/+Wwb9jlGA/yJFjYXxIyNcb/B2gw93DxnaKjD7qLxv9F JVBs4hnBUSZaX7xbN5XJYNi56YVbD0Fy20COpnSyZOlAvyBQIr+s+6H0ME9tzDEPF1RZ ZoBeiR6re8MvGjIPa1kQiXdVizeSKdhgSTTKAMm+zIBWZgaw/qdnw6jAjwz8Aa+akvJK S57Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531jZbMjxf0sEomLlm7K6DbbXH01DRRsnb+8q2QyUEGBSI8K2OLP 4hVAuw6vWZfh4zSQuyExQxQJvvGLcAZzXw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxEPGyIgaYyK7kCUx69GI02PYzF0bk1Yeh2Pkg/Sp0npVdMmrcuaqONN1Dwna/rILDlRjAM/A==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:e784:b029:f5:6961:f355 with SMTP id cp4-20020a170902e784b02900f56961f355mr1926619plb.9.1623185338655; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 13:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e003:100d:901:80b2:5c79:2266:e431? ([2406:e003:100d:901:80b2:5c79:2266:e431]) by with ESMTPSA id m2sm16290437pjf.24.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Jun 2021 13:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: HBH Option Header Configuration (draft-hinden-6man-hbh-processing)
To: Nick Hilliard <>, Bob Hinden <>
Cc: IPv6 List <>
References: <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 08:48:52 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2021 20:49:05 -0000

On 09-Jun-21 08:18, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Bob Hinden wrote on 08/06/2021 21:06:
>> We have discussed this and conclude that yes, we are proposing to
>> require all nodes to examine and process the first HBH Option in the
>> Fast Path.   Not just drop packets with HBH Option Headers.  This
>> change needs to be made clearer in the draft.
> [...]
>> Comments?
> yep - it's 26 years too late to close this particular stable door.

I wouldn't say it exactly like that, but I think the requirement is
totally unrealistic. To be precise:

"However, it
is to be expected that high-performance routers will either ignore it
or assign packets containing it to a slow processing path.  Designers
planning to use a hop-by-hop option need to be aware of this likely


(Standards wonk comment: Since RFC8200 does not obsolete or update
RFC7045, this draft would need to formally update RFC7045 for this
reason. Which I would object to...)


> Nick
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------