Re: [6MAN] draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (was Re: Re: draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-01)
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 11 June 2013 03:26 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 C29F911E80D7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fBrlKsX-+TBV for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x22c.google.com (mail-pb0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D598211E80CC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id uo1so3218111pbc.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=x7L24zYU+xtln5+zbJzEcsba5tCNopoeQ6f9Xo2RgcE=; b=WDcRcb+ZTlj32zRhzkPej7ykWwv/1Kh4qVYDO/qP/YLJtA/nXqfssg6umFizXDXCgY JAdI6pJhKiTBMyi1gOE1Vtse524wgewh43105d6gWsBe1bbRpyXaKRJ7KlPFNlaCXbjz L6suGzT58aotE2CQhS6IckCyVAjwoKCb2uN8i7O6o0FjQkPuxv1Sd/RDLZXiDi3swAFl jTScOskG7QhLedEICcDM/bg/SEcLASlPVPhlpWjYqR99zPr2lASDVCCfP/92/TTC36RC Vf65dBlDPq6ki+L18z2q6M3VwN8Nc7LksC4ZeCOChsHWe2ZNSPp5ZZptkbwaenTrfoJ/ kx9w==
X-Received: by 10.68.213.162 with SMTP id nt2mr12332482pbc.179.1370921188318; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (118-92-62-227.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz. [118.92.62.227]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qe10sm10259560pbb.2.2013.06.10.20.26.25 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:26:27 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51B698E2.3030901@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:26:26 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Subject: Re: [6MAN] draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (was Re: Re: draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-01)
References: <51B0B581.7020203@globis.net> <1370535649.98609.YahooMailNeo@web2805.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <51B0EC7B.1090904@si6networks.com> <51B0EED6.6020200@bogus.com> <51B0F3E6.4010006@globis.net> <51B2F59A.3090003@bogus.com> <51B4865D.2000207@si6networks.com> <51B4B216.5050205@gmail.com> <51B55698.7050307@gmail.com> <510D1209-7F9E-42AA-B790-A418CBF2959D@kumari.net> <51B63314.9080502@gmail.com> <34A6E408-10F3-4824-96EF-4A85016DA590@kumari.net>
In-Reply-To: <34A6E408-10F3-4824-96EF-4A85016DA590@kumari.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 03:26:29 -0000
On 11/06/2013 08:59, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Jun 10, 2013, at 4:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Why wouldn't we add a sentence in -oversized-header-chain >> following this: >> >>> 6. Updating RFC 2460 >>> >>> If an IPv6 packet is fragmented, the first fragment of that IPv6 >>> packet (i.e., the fragment having a Fragment Offset of 0) MUST >>> contain the entire IPv6 header chain. >> >> The entire IPv6 header including the header chain SHOULD NOT exceed >> 256 octets. >> >> (or whatever magic number we decide on). >> >> We might need some words to justify that, but they can be found >> in this thread. > > You mean like what I said in the below email: Sure, except that this would add it to a standards track draft (fwiw). Brian >>> We are planning on updating the long-headers draft / publishing another "implementers guide" draft that suggests 128 or 256 bytes (as a straw man). This will hopefully be something that major vendors will sign up for. > > > Fine idea! > > W > >> Regards >> Brian Carpenter >> >> On 11/06/2013 03:03, Warren Kumari wrote: >>> On Jun 10, 2013, at 12:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/06/2013 04:49, Tom Taylor wrote: >>>>> On 09/06/2013 9:42 AM, Fernando Gont wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>> I guess having a L4-pointer would have helped quite a lot. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>> Would it be practical to define a HBH option that has an L4 pointer and >>>>> assign a fixed order to it? >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-6man-offset-option-01 >>>> >>>> It didn't fly in this WG at the time. >>> The issue is that, in order to be able to see header X you need to push all the bits up to header X onto the forwarding engine. Having a header that says "The L4 header is at byte 142" simply pushes the L4 out by another 8 bytes, exacerbating the problem. >>> >>> This issue is: >>> 1: In order to make a decision on header X the forwarding / filtering engine needs to see header X >>> 2: This require pushing at least <number of bytes from start of packet to end of header X> up to the forwarding engine in a "cell". >>> 3: Bandwidth into the forwarding engine is expensive / limited, and storage on the forwarding engine is expensive (this is not DRAM ;-)) >>> 4: As you don't know (until you've looked) how far into the packet header X is, you need to choose some number and ship that many bytes to the forwarding engine. >>> 5: Having a header that points at the L4 info doesn't help -- by the time you can see it you've already sucked the bits onto the engine. >>> 6: Having additional logic that "prescreens" the packets looking for a pointer header *could* possibly work, but that is much of the forwarding engine logic - see #3. >>> >>> Choosing the optimum cell size is the tricky bit. If you increase the cell size you vastly increase cost -- if your competitors don't do the same, you've priced yourself out of the market. >>> >>> We are planning on updating the long-headers draft / publishing another "implementers guide" draft that suggests 128 or 256 bytes (as a straw man). This will hopefully be something that major vendors will sign up for. >>> >>> W >>> >>> >>>> Brian >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>>> ipv6@ietf.org >>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>> -- >>> It's a mistake trying to cheer up camels. You might as well drop meringues into a black hole. -- Terry Prachett >>> >>> >>> . >>> > > -- > It is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain > to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. > -- E.W Dijkstra, 1930-2002 > > > >
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Ray Hunter
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Tom Taylor
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Fernando Gont
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Fernando Gont
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Arturo Servin
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Fernando Gont
- draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (was Re… Ray Hunter
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Nalini Elkins
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Fernando Gont
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Ray Hunter
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Nalini Elkins
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02… Ray Hunter
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Fernando Gont
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Fernando Gont
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… joel jaeggli
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Ray Hunter
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Ole Troan
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Nalini Elkins
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… joel jaeggli
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… joel jaeggli
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Ray Hunter
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Andrew McGregor
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… joel jaeggli
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Randy Bush
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Arturo Servin
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Nalini Elkins
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Christopher Morrow
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… joel jaeggli
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Fernando Gont
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Nalini Elkins
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Randy Bush
- Re: [6MAN] draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain… Warren Kumari
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Christopher Morrow
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 sthaug
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Ray Hunter
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Christopher Morrow
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Ray Hunter
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… joel jaeggli
- Re: [6MAN] draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [6MAN] draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain… sthaug
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… Ray Hunter
- Re: [6MAN] draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain… Warren Kumari
- Re: [6MAN] draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain… Warren Kumari
- RE: [6MAN] draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain… Christian Huitema
- Re: [6MAN] draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain… Fernando Gont
- Re: [6MAN] draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [6MAN] draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [6MAN] draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain… Ole Troan
- Re: [6MAN] draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain… Fernando Gont
- Re: [6MAN] draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain… joel jaeggli
- Re: [6MAN] draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain… Ole Troan
- Re: [6MAN] draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain… Fernando Gont
- RE: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 (wa… George, Wes