IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Future of hop-by-hop options ? (was: DISCUSS on draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-08)

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Thu, 12 August 2021 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.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 EA39F3A18FC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 09:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 VhQjDE1npzh5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 09:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52c.google.com (mail-ed1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A58B23A18F9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 09:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id z11so10545347edb.11 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 09:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NUQI0UDEVjtY8d85m0+07KP6RvRPA/kf2YKdEyrvHNI=; b=jDYWERWeznSlsYCNvV8qkUId9pI3aSYB98cRA7C0rrT1SlVDKMOuSAzKAlkaooropg LYBtSHbu+miCmNQ1kSlZN7AKFnErZ8wIz7lzBpw0MWlIpZTcgc4ZFe25WGjyDZV5GycC gF49MNoiTI6Z1YUd+pm1G5Xrg2OXWRABM3cxG5gONAVNuBYA6Q6bDQP6aQMTJnT9tQ6F LssulYPXQbc6lUtoJ6Lw9VKowiPAFoM7A5EEvSiq/hl59t6Ycl8HHpgaEvBI3hNZAOqG jKe+5bSMeDjab/3eLNM/4FbQ6VJV8obwEeo5jD9tymLiCe4i7SePOFWFY6Cy/f/ZcSV1 De0g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NUQI0UDEVjtY8d85m0+07KP6RvRPA/kf2YKdEyrvHNI=; b=VpdQMzkZbD040mIoDk/YJHhyuYnNLGKO5gMAJykIVlAMmgjeCA3/Ph3RQMOF3yEe9K TgAOam3ehwnvsTa7NzwnErlHyhywJwwGKS2X5ktwQxN9hZBDfQwrsiU+Uueew9U8QX/t eFI6VEzpp0L6sKjs2Quv2MNtn6WFjkAbIX2vtvZoX9w/rUIlz4846HZTe6U15jk2S2mL 01Na2RWFZ+dy3IC7biGhuCwne4UJXu7tfbPjfC7/xeIhi/GUxJ/nb3FgfGZ6mW9+jJCa 8/Vlm/OcITlgdXG5k7Cwb6+BKcnK9I1EPv/ZClspc2oTUHCI9FPHMPZH39j7dLFa8FH1 MynQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Stuug3X+7htqDqmZJFygBNir0PCwXHfraiTEa4AI+qaOVvbCy Si+EICRVakP9jj0DGGWpDOQnHV8ivGZXHISdqKdhzA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxLOSrRiuCUVk5cKJOJayQRXFPtey3crW1k0+VKeGE0qZ+RiCs+xJ+1shAL3nQZdDukYHwzgP6x1W3usUqeClk=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:c306:: with SMTP id l6mr6410825edq.383.1628785808017; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 09:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210812151750.GA12485@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <b54e15f9-2e99-b227-d099-37442fb8b2ec@foobar.org> <09E29CAA-4906-4837-B1F7-77F1A063B761@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <09E29CAA-4906-4837-B1F7-77F1A063B761@gmail.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 09:29:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S356B5DkXaZhYzVzUyz1XcGs777uNJ2YicpmCzBtsWveKg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Future of hop-by-hop options ? (was: DISCUSS on draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-08)
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Cc: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/R_LUk6KyaVihd64GC_HFO4HBNK4>
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, 12 Aug 2021 16:30:20 -0000

On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 8:51 AM Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Aug 12, 2021, at 8:42 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> >
> > Toerless Eckert wrote on 12/08/2021 16:17:
> >> I was wondering if/what we had anything written up already yet to document
> >> the architectural challenges of the IPv6 hop-by-hop behavior and
> >> expectations. If not, we should.
> >
> > at a more general level, rfc7872 and draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops describe issues with EHs.
>
> As well as:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hinden-6man-hbh-processing/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peng-v6ops-hbh-05
>
> There is ongoing work to improve the situation.
>
And also draft-herbert-6man-eh-limits to improve the situation for EH
in general.

Tom

> Bob
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email