Re: Comments on raft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-01

Ole Troan <> Fri, 01 November 2019 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A0D7120DA3 for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 10:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rtHoPm1Lm-bS for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 10:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9857120DA0 for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 10:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:47d8:a02f:44e8:c311:d86b] (unknown [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:47d8:a02f:44e8:c311:d86b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0A8604E11B48; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:46:39 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ole Troan <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Comments on raft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-01
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 18:46:36 +0100
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
Cc: 6man <>
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Tom Herbert <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17B5084a)
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: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 17:46:42 -0000

DestOpt => measurement only  by node in DA
HBH => every router on the path with feature enabled
SRH TLV => every node along the SR path
DestOpt + SRH => every node along the SR path


> On 1 Nov 2019, at 18:33, Tom Herbert <> wrote:
> ´╗┐Hello,
>> From the draft: "Regarding Hop-By-Hop Options Header, if we consider
> its real deployment, it is sometimes dropped by legacy devices and not
> so used by intermediate nodes.  Destination Options Header is
> preferred."
> I don't think this is helpful guidance. First of all, it's not just
> Hop-by-Hop options that can be dropped, it's pretty much packets with
> any extension heades or atypical protocols that might be dropped by
> legacy devices-- including packets with Destination Options or Routing
> Headers. Neither does it make sense that Destination Options Header is
> preferred, as correctly stated in the previous paragraph DO and HBH
> address difference use cases (i.e. DO is end to end, and HBH is per
> hop). Saying that DO is preferred is equivalent to saying that
> end-to-end performance measurements are preferred which I doubt is the
> intent. IMO, this whole paragraph could be removed without loss of
> content.
> "SRH TLV can also be a good choice from this point of view.  The
> intermediated nodes that are not in the SID list can consider the SRH
> as a green field, they cannot support and bypass or support and dig
> into the SRH TLV."
> I disagree with the conclusion that SRH TLV is a good choice. The
> implicit assumption in this paragraph is that somehow SRH EH is less
> likely to be dropped by intermediate nodes than other EH like DO and
> HBH. I don't think there's any data to support that. Additionally,
> it's not clear what use case an SRH TLV addresses that can't already
> be addressed by Destination or HBH options.
> Tom
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------