IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D Action: draft-han-6man-in-band-signaling-for-transport-qos-00.txt

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Tue, 17 October 2017 07:11 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 36C731332D5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 00:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 hHFvlGaF4KES for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 00:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from accordion.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCA481331F1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 00:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from h.hanazo.no (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by accordion.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F9EF2D50AF; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 07:11:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97D74200585B54; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:11:03 +0200 (CEST)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Message-Id: <4E40E3EF-B0E5-490E-BFF2-0511D97E9E80@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3760EBA3-1BE5-4104-99CC-9635850DF4A9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.0 \(3445.1.7\))
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-han-6man-in-band-signaling-for-transport-qos-00.txt
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:11:02 +0200
In-Reply-To: <a4da4b26-6402-ad0d-a5f5-5bddc192b8f7@gmail.com>
Cc: Lin Han <Lin.Han@huawei.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <150774513036.24791.2138264254901122467@ietfa.amsl.com> <cc11634a-b5a2-88b9-f36f-82b3fd9d8d70@gmail.com> <1D30AF33624CDD4A99E8C395069A2A162CD734B2@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com> <a4da4b26-6402-ad0d-a5f5-5bddc192b8f7@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.1.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/KSHwGSLcZEs-Ayukn_sEUgore3w>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 07:11:15 -0000

>> [LH] The propose does not introduce new hop-by-hop option header, we only introduce new option carried in the existing hop-by-hop option header,
> 
> Yes, that is exactly what the paragraph from RFC8200 means: it
> says "New hop-by-hop options are not recommended".

Blindly reciting rules without also understanding and explaining the intent leads to unintended consequences.

In this particular case, where every hop along the path would need to support it, then that's the exact use case for the hop by hop header.


Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email