RE: Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-header Sec 2.1
Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> Thu, 11 July 2019 06:43 UTC
Return-Path: <zhoutianran@huawei.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 B0344120131 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 23:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_DIV_BONANZA=0.001, BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 0hLyCOTOk5l1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 23:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5FC612008B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 23:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id DDB577C0B7A638CBBE04 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 07:43:41 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.54) by lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 07:43:41 +0100
Received: from lhreml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.54) by lhreml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.54) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 07:43:40 +0100
Received: from NKGEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.73) by lhreml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.54) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 07:43:40 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.134]) by nkgeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.73]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 14:43:29 +0800
From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>, "Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)" <pengshuping@huawei.com>
CC: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-header Sec 2.1
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-header Sec 2.1
Thread-Index: AQHVNtWCwu3J4TG3IEeYWngDhq1HFKbDRpYAgAAHDQCAAAfigIAAGseAgAGHz4A=
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 06:43:28 +0000
Message-ID: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BEE7FDDC@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <CACL_3VGP4-kmyJGo1Gxea7HhcKY3P3EGHwgmcYxCGLnjPh-YCg@mail.gmail.com> <4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE148446F8@dggeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CAO42Z2wJR_fssOwLnz_1s=Cz-L3azvXE3tWSB+4YHT9q-QEv8Q@mail.gmail.com> <4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE148447E9@dggeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CACL_3VF3L89uRuCQY_GO6HJm=r0JVWBvZzma-RNmM3s7rqy3pQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACL_3VF3L89uRuCQY_GO6HJm=r0JVWBvZzma-RNmM3s7rqy3pQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.156.116]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BEE7FDDCNKGEML515MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Num1UswlUjtKnt8iL1Pci_JHDoo>
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, 11 Jul 2019 06:43:47 -0000
Hi Mike, On the following words, I am still not clear. If the node is able or configured to examine and process the hbh header, we still do not know whether it can be processed in fast path. NOTE: While [RFC2460<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460>] required that all nodes must examine and process the Hop-by-Hop Options header, it is now expected that nodes along a packet's delivery path only examine and process the Hop-by-Hop Options header if explicitly configured to do so. I find one relevant draft, but it’s expired. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling-03.txt Tianran From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of C. M. Heard Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 11:14 PM To: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <pengshuping@huawei.com> Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-header Sec 2.1 On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 6:38 AM Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) wrote: > Take the IOAM as an example, the action needs to be performed hop by > hop along the path. However, when some routers along the path enable > the processing of the HBH but others just ignore it. Then the IOAM > service fails. Therefore, the enforcement of the processing of the > HBH according to the service requirements would be required in the > procedure wise. So what you want is a Hop-by-Hop Options header that all nodes along the path must process. As Mark pointed out, we've been down that road before: both RFC 2460 Section 4.3<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460#section-4.3> and RFC 1883 Section 4.3<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1883#section-4.3> (its predecessor) contained the following text. The Hop-by-Hop Options header is used to carry optional information that must be examined by every node along a packet's delivery path. In the 2+ decades following the publication of RFC 1883 that idea never caught on, That's why RFC 8200 Section 4 added the note NOTE: While [RFC2460<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460>] required that all nodes must examine and process the Hop-by-Hop Options header, it is now expected that nodes along a packet's delivery path only examine and process the Hop-by-Hop Options header if explicitly configured to do so. and why RFC 8200 Section 4.3<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8200#section-4.3> now says The Hop-by-Hop Options header is used to carry optional information that may be examined and processed by every node along a packet's delivery path. Based on the decades of experience, it's fair to say that the true hop-by-hop behavior as needed for IOAM to work cannot be expected in the general Internet. Putting the Hop-by-Hop Options header in a new Next Header type will not magically change that. It will, however, cause backward compatibility problems in end systems, because they will see an unknown Next Header type and drop the packet (see RFC 8200 Section 4<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8200#section-4>): If, as a result of processing a header, the destination node is required to proceed to the next header but the Next Header value in the current header is unrecognized by the node, it should discard the packet and send an ICMP Parameter Problem message to the source of the packet, with an ICMP Code value of 1 ("unrecognized Next Header type encountered") and the ICMP Pointer field containing the offset of the unrecognized value within the original packet. The same action should be taken if a node encounters a Next Header value of zero in any header other than an IPv6 header. The best that can be expected is that true hop-by-hop behavior, as required for IOAM to work as desired, can be made to work in a controlled environment (aka limited domain) wherein every router is able to process the Hop-by-Hop Options header at wire speed and has been configured to do so. A new Next Header type is not needed to accomplish that. Mike Heard
- Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-head… C. M. Heard
- 答复: Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-… Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)
- Re: Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-… Mark Smith
- 答复: Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-… Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)
- Re: Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-… C. M. Heard
- RE: Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-… Tianran Zhou
- RE: Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-… Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)
- Re: Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-… C. M. Heard
- RE: Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-… Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)
- Re: Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-… C. M. Heard
- Re: Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-… C. M. Heard
- Re: Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-… Mark Smith