IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-header Sec 2.1

"Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)" <pengshuping@huawei.com> Mon, 15 July 2019 02:04 UTC

Return-Path: <pengshuping@huawei.com>
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 7ED18120143 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 19:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_DIV_BONANZA=0.001, BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 XOU2gOkLNNJ7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 19:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1511D12001B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 19:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 9C31CEAD73BB3507A904; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 03:04:41 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.38) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 03:04:34 +0100
Received: from DGGEML512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.81]) by DGGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::fca6:7568:4ee3:c776%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 10:04:24 +0800
From: "Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)" <pengshuping@huawei.com>
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
CC: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-header Sec 2.1
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-header Sec 2.1
Thread-Index: AQHVNtWJ9VJynMEzNkOxlpH2YeiDrabDxMsw//+I2ACAAIl0oP//mTWAgALMYvD//5ahgAAQzJFw
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 02:04:24 +0000
Message-ID: <4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE1484836A@dggeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <CACL_3VGP4-kmyJGo1Gxea7HhcKY3P3EGHwgmcYxCGLnjPh-YCg@mail.gmail.com> <4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE148446F8@dggeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CAO42Z2wJR_fssOwLnz_1s=Cz-L3azvXE3tWSB+4YHT9q-QEv8Q@mail.gmail.com> <4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE148447E9@dggeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CACL_3VF3L89uRuCQY_GO6HJm=r0JVWBvZzma-RNmM3s7rqy3pQ@mail.gmail.com> <4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE14846974@dggeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CACL_3VFaP6=+wMiAZrGqv8SkwYeyjyV3d=fgHPX-hQdXVYoUUw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACL_3VFaP6=+wMiAZrGqv8SkwYeyjyV3d=fgHPX-hQdXVYoUUw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.130.169.124]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE1484836Adggeml512mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/0xGqnXkmB_0XXQxrMmLJvpcjGsU>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 02:04:47 -0000

The draft says that “The Options can be shared with the original Hop-by-Hop Options Header.” Not the same.



Basically, the options are categorized based on their requirements of different processing by being placed into different HBH option headers. In the new HBH header if present, all the carried options will be processed at wire speed instead of being dispatched to CPU.



Shuping



From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 11:40 AM
To: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <pengshuping@huawei.com>
Cc: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>; 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>; Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-header Sec 2.1

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 7:19 PM Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <pengshuping@huawei.com<mailto:pengshuping@huawei.com>> wrote:
We could do engineering at each option to indicate every router how to treat it. However, that will not be very efficient since each option type needs to be gone through and checked against the preset configuration.

The new header that you propose uses the same options, so how would it be different?

Mike Heard

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email