Re: Interest in IPv6 Hop by Hop options

" Rémi Denis-Courmont" <remi@remlab.net> Wed, 04 November 2009 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <remi@remlab.net>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E5B3A6768 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:52:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.115
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.115 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qdg6PI5mImhG for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:52:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from yop.chewa.net (yop.chewa.net [91.121.105.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 003243A659B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:52:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from basile.remlab.net (cs27051160.pp.htv.fi [89.27.51.160]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: remi) by yop.chewa.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B9E9A195; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:52:35 +0100 (CET)
From: Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi@remlab.net>
Organization: Remlab.net
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Interest in IPv6 Hop by Hop options
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:52:33 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.30.9; KDE/4.3.2; i686; ; )
References: <4AF1AE7A.6000705@tssg.org>
In-Reply-To: <4AF1AE7A.6000705@tssg.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <200911041852.33959.remi@remlab.net>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:52:20 -0000

Le mercredi 4 novembre 2009 18:40:26 Alan Davy, vous avez écrit :
> We are currently specifying an IPv6 hop by hop option which will be used
> to carry node related information along a path within a network domain.
> There has been previous proposals submitted to the IETF within this
> area, such as IPv6 Route Record [1] and Connection/Link Status
> Investigation[2]. We are aware of the reasons these proposals have been
> rejected previously, being mainly related to the problems of the hop by
> hop option and the operators unwillingness to share private data.

Every router and middlebox on the path needs to parse HBH, which causes severe 
challenge with some hardware and/or software architecture. Hence, I believe 
many, if not all, network gears vendors hate HBH.

With HBH, you can in principle extend IPv6 routing to do really anything. But 
then you need to upgrade all the routers. And that's simply not going to 
happen. So basically, HBH is only useful in the mythical "walled garden" 
networks.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
http://www.remlab.net/