IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Comments on draft-hinden-6man-hbh-processing-00

otroan@employees.org Mon, 29 March 2021 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 6E1113A223D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 14:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 Yp_mE93laQyc for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 14:28:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9559D3A223C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 14:28:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (dhcp193287219.blix.com [193.28.7.219]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 684674E11ADB; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 21:28:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 516F15356E22; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 23:28:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <B400529C-4E6C-4F9E-B8A1-5777F0915742@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E645CF2D-6279-4965-93A2-4BBB24D65FB4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-hinden-6man-hbh-processing-00
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 23:28:19 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmUCmbQGGG93o4BfgjroU1kX-vBng3BT2021A_Ee5G_nDA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <CACL_3VEWhSyQt+uz5HyntJ_haYadNMHuCMQCiRY8FW-ntBoLAQ@mail.gmail.com> <B2208374-C92D-46C4-8AFA-7CFAF3EFE6B8@gmail.com> <CACL_3VGUVtcGu=Uxm-jqsNuDs=JjzzNvT7JUAoy-8u0C6Xd5mw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmUCmbQGGG93o4BfgjroU1kX-vBng3BT2021A_Ee5G_nDA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/85oyNUcQ6UIMiGp5iyYr4oYYLhs>
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, 29 Mar 2021 21:28:28 -0000


> On 29 Mar 2021, at 23:03, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The first two collect the telemetry information in the same packet that carries the IOAM Trace-Options header. The other two use specially generated packets to collect and transport the telemetry information. I wanted to mention these methods to point out that the IOAM footprint in HbH doesn' have to be 4n and it can be limited to the length of the IOAM Trace-Options header.
> I hope that this information is of use for the discussion.

It would be interesting to hear from implementors if the 64-bit alignment offers any benefit at all.

From the implementations I work on packets aren't arriving in buffers 64-bit aligned anyway (variable length L2 headers) so it just doesn't offer any benefit.

Best regards,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email