IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Future of hop-by-hop options ? (was: DISCUSS on draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-08)

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Thu, 12 August 2021 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.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 527273A43F7; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 nEXii6Rk-li1; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x334.google.com (mail-wm1-x334.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::334]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D46423A43F4; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x334.google.com with SMTP id i10-20020a05600c354ab029025a0f317abfso7697879wmq.3; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=maAUlT1ar8tO5/zCwF2w61MADmvgChi7es+dLb/CNKQ=; b=P4HeMqp9xW6wqMuOLjlB1o0ZDeYZ4LMorqqP6P9/YXMGIv7C9cXoqmpaIrRaf9bnPb OQTiRufZzqNJYfYf1sh7aY1PhNEuc3W+gAzz+IjoUaqpeMmZqJEXMxQ+kW+q9hbU4bA5 ScBaZgrR6iNKNw/r/tAAkAS+tkv4AQSpOedxCv3lGBrT/rGkhxxEjAHRDk03E6Bicvx8 7BMbEcErsFEhi9H5oPUUSD7XsC0KdaqXlmtKc6xR3u0voLSs98JQd0o1gq9Oxub6oBXI UEGzuXVfSaAf6b5JUXxAI4ewHSgb8bdCfjq1ghA5STi/K6oWw6vXWv53OcOJapVYSwWC 0WgA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=maAUlT1ar8tO5/zCwF2w61MADmvgChi7es+dLb/CNKQ=; b=YsGotzbtj850vODCGw0pCVr8fptrMlTXBWwaGjJIDEdmtlD6coWK5NyV5kFIInvn3M ymNfA2cZAt3rVb2aSgSe6rI4MRX5gDWCjo4Fzl66dRFto5sUy5PDAjwdPIHGr6SdoaBp +lAfaeS3DR2CaGAsZ+pdz9JWjG1nD/Lf2S3sVyTmCX4vwuToCMZ4arnw+JYmhbcXTLyP +XT3tz3dZyCg76xwXE5IMYIk99T+gVp+y5j9DahKgxtaffIFv27w7/hTxsCFor0gEy3b F3obtDICFpWfnjl/e3yX9xABdcu1ggMxBkNbG/XzWp4fh0zre65KaVbdh7/5+53eHPY9 /ZEQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5336dimQOj0r3cDlOQ+rLWuTDyVDW1dHfx1c3WJwpbHPoDQuRtz7 tUEucgDpkoJ+5o0EXfenjF8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwxxYHciUpIyl2IxOGi00lxyMGbz31ZOhD32wG1k9GPRWNglaO8XiRAzKRR0WJduC4ETLLOuw==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:7dd0:: with SMTP id y199mr5343060wmc.148.1628789569053; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:659:c81c:3ea0:8bad:88d? ([2601:647:5a00:659:c81c:3ea0:8bad:88d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l41sm8520405wms.2.2021.08.12.10.32.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <C2C75271-9300-4FB9-B8D8-DA3411BB624C@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1F909CFC-B4BC-49D1-B7DC-919048112EF8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
Subject: Re: Future of hop-by-hop options ? (was: DISCUSS on draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-08)
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:32:43 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S356B5DkXaZhYzVzUyz1XcGs777uNJ2YicpmCzBtsWveKg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@ietf.org>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
References: <20210812151750.GA12485@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <b54e15f9-2e99-b227-d099-37442fb8b2ec@foobar.org> <09E29CAA-4906-4837-B1F7-77F1A063B761@gmail.com> <CALx6S356B5DkXaZhYzVzUyz1XcGs777uNJ2YicpmCzBtsWveKg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Di0HyiZqlgOAXhnqMturlL_C6KA>
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: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 17:32:59 -0000


> On Aug 12, 2021, at 9:29 AM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 8:51 AM Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 12, 2021, at 8:42 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Toerless Eckert wrote on 12/08/2021 16:17:
>>>> I was wondering if/what we had anything written up already yet to document
>>>> the architectural challenges of the IPv6 hop-by-hop behavior and
>>>> expectations. If not, we should.
>>> 
>>> at a more general level, rfc7872 and draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops describe issues with EHs.
>> 
>> As well as:
>> 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hinden-6man-hbh-processing/
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peng-v6ops-hbh-05
>> 
>> There is ongoing work to improve the situation.
>> 
> And also draft-herbert-6man-eh-limits to improve the situation for EH
> in general.

+1

Bob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email