RE: HBH Obsolete? (was Review of draft-ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling-01)

Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Sun, 03 April 2016 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
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 BDDA512D5AC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 08:04:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.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 Q4lyQDNr1v7B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 08:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0115.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF02012D198 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 08:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-juniper-net; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=LvHErpAvHA5U2sYquNT2cfzR3rqHMuMWjkSA7tyGzyk=; b=iHf72EHiCLTerwYcTnJaL+txvtAZ6mmbdhfi1EavDU7noGQc6hTxmkVORUWFfqSGGe5yO6ekSufPQZPRBSemgLPi+nbIcH+tP4VwR5HTYNpo2JRAC5ZwaJVuPpygkwacLbYkHcRthVeL4b6+1tEIYH9bWUonaYdHTLl4BQmLvBc=
Received: from BLUPR05MB1985.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.162.224.27) by BLUPR05MB1988.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.162.224.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.447.15; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 15:04:31 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB1985.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.224.27]) by BLUPR05MB1985.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.224.27]) with mapi id 15.01.0447.027; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 15:04:31 +0000
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, ipv6 <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: HBH Obsolete? (was Review of draft-ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling-01)
Thread-Topic: HBH Obsolete? (was Review of draft-ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling-01)
Thread-Index: AQHRhlKi1sM6pnB/7E+m9N9ZbSJijp9qfaiAgACOaYCADFFu8A==
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 15:04:31 +0000
Message-ID: <BLUPR05MB19853C94E92E801FAFC87076AE9C0@BLUPR05MB1985.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CACL_3VGYFe4O0qkmgY4aCpdMQn2xiDK2rvO4T6t77CFjxi0YbA@mail.gmail.com> <CACL_3VGcnP2pkmm8MGOHDb11cYG-VSF76Qx2vwJXBdisbYgOQg@mail.gmail.com> <20999.1458930949@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <56F5FC7B.7010601@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <56F5FC7B.7010601@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.12]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e5e39b85-eb81-4d15-ae0f-08d35bd142c2
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BLUPR05MB1988; 5:rFdY15KIZM+5uKhLc85i/nDJ11Dh68j84d+vXkQUOqjuH77iSsgKz3sBPOU3bx5qkUauCZK/xFyBFm5j/BiW+q6ikTVfJrUPrSfyWayCK4QwZfzuQTTAQy+Ja5N4tgfa7+T2YL4wMfCOTert4DkwMQ==; 24:6ShH+zMYvfCrK3OBCwODbuokEpAr+fAjyaYAmk8XtgjIJdbtKylkFBOYKA+AFhVLoBYnRgul9h/cs1QziqCOcmYn5OHszUIFZWtsGY6GYtk=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BLUPR05MB1988;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BLUPR05MB19885E1C5AB727FF88AEB33FAE9C0@BLUPR05MB1988.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046); SRVR:BLUPR05MB1988; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BLUPR05MB1988;
x-forefront-prvs: 09011458FC
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(979002)(6009001)(13464003)(377454003)(24454002)(66066001)(2906002)(3280700002)(3660700001)(4326007)(93886004)(11100500001)(50986999)(76176999)(54356999)(5890100001)(74316001)(5003600100002)(33656002)(189998001)(1220700001)(81166005)(92566002)(586003)(6116002)(102836003)(3846002)(87936001)(5001770100001)(1096002)(5004730100002)(230783001)(10400500002)(19580405001)(19580395003)(76576001)(99286002)(15975445007)(86362001)(77096005)(106116001)(122556002)(2950100001)(5008740100001)(2900100001)(5002640100001)(7059030)(969003)(989001)(999001)(1009001)(1019001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR05MB1988; H:BLUPR05MB1985.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:ovrnspm; PTR:InfoNoRecords; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Apr 2016 15:04:31.4781 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR05MB1988
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/IRleijtRhaIwGDpv3HTokFl0WpM>
Cc: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 15:04:35 -0000

Brian,

Even of somebody saw a Jumbogram at an IXP, it wouldn't be so bad. The IPv6 header would have:

- a packet length of 0
- a next header of HBH

If the receiving node didn't recognize Jumbograms, wouldn't it discard the packet and send an ICMP Parameter Problem to the source?

                                                                                                        Ron


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 11:06 PM
> To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>; ipv6 <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Cc: C. M. Heard <heard@pobox.com>
> Subject: Re: HBH Obsolete? (was Review of draft-ietf-6man-hbh-header-
> handling-01)
> 
> On 26/03/2016 07:35, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >
> > C. M. Heard <heard@pobox.com> wrote:
> >     > Indeed, the question arises whether allowing a router to ignore these
> >     > options beaks them, or not.  Clearly so for Jumbo Payload,
> 
> I dispute that, as far as the real world goes. Nobody ever expected the
> jumbo payload to be used outside a "consenting adults" scenario; the
> requirement to send back ICMP on discard is really icing on the jumbo cake.
> As some words in
> RFC3765 tells you, the path has to be pretty much hand-crafted:
> 
> "  On links with configurable MTUs, the MTU must not be configured to a
>    value greater than 65,575 octets if there are nodes attached to that
>    link that do not support the Jumbo Payload option and it can not be
>    guaranteed that the Jumbo Payload option will not be sent to those
>    nodes."
> 
> So in practice, it really doesn't matter what the non-supporting router does.
> Did anybody ever see one of these things at a peering link or an IXP? I very
> much doubt it.
> 
>     Brian
> 
> 
> >     > but it's
> >     > unclear to me why RPL, MPL, and DFF need to be specified as other
> than
> >     > ignore if unrecognized.
> >
> > I agree that it's unclear if there is real benefit.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software
> Works
> > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------