IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-header Sec 2.1

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 15 July 2019 04:00 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 64A6B120071 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 21:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 qcDkmhjXWv7m for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 21:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x433.google.com (mail-pf1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::433]) (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 7B69512006D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 21:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x433.google.com with SMTP id q10so6761824pff.9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 21:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qk6g0EcnfGKrWxznBhGPocZhexNjoyGYtav3gYdL8d0=; b=fnwKMCRe54RXH0L89OPwkI4GEfCzxBzE+2s6D0jLNbSffccYta+qynmJ2FuiCXXEmX st78Dq/ygWyauVr+aeDJ578GOR32f5vdgM6OqfdCuWkkV2DfEBauw6Mv4D1VIqrbl1dy AtCPSZZYmucCRZficEcFWofkqhjeEfqStp8BjLHywGFgBLDb1geRhVDVZnSEvZcbh8Vr S/b5xLw1l0rutnq5ZP5apTUaEYR8uZjXTX/MNFcNHDumhAbro317yYs8+zr4lKEvKwpa BP7JtV5v6CJKZVzcbWTF7jYwFHEVw2WRpCteC/RH7nIKJcTagxfWE4+0MmoFXi/cOkmX Lg2w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=qk6g0EcnfGKrWxznBhGPocZhexNjoyGYtav3gYdL8d0=; b=BZMZhY6a6HotRafViDiBTCT+vLTUK2Iul6LyTmEmYOuD8w8wIKQsXyQgFspktFIA53 WPvvt41ezRfTY6c/gIiwx/IgL3sO4z6RPa+8gucwfoOer1OlJYdRtIfXc5iWd0LK7FCE A0fU3ywX2zdi5uQRAB++hhPs6YGA0CBgciQfome+EOmWuw1osE7X4Sbm7i+9hMEbOoiL s49SvJ5tuM1sVKM69wp/gUgUp3OhMu8riWHbV3cUdD7BZ83tRAmvnVOQQVk3HrQo9JX8 swaIqHnGUE5AmpsN4dagAHEf31gBwITn726CCpaRCBAc9F4YmyY9kvKAiq6gpU0ZKJib 4SWg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWBZvu8xuo3IkKTUIUwIWffqYlOV/xTbLD5qRbT5pfQRgZGWNDK SNKewenUAU/ea262UD23rMZg5Nfy
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwP9fsg6sLCSP19vQGF+/LKe/9Oj2gCIPk1cHFstx7vlKeoVssjXiCOTFHu0pAwsUBY4AewrA==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:640d:: with SMTP id a13mr24526730pgv.256.1563163208608; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 21:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] (40.226.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.226.40]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v63sm16243591pfv.174.2019.07.14.21.00.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 14 Jul 2019 21:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-header Sec 2.1
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>, "Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)" <pengshuping@huawei.com>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
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> <4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE14846974@dggeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CACL_3VFaP6=+wMiAZrGqv8SkwYeyjyV3d=fgHPX-hQdXVYoUUw@mail.gmail.com> <4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE1484836A@dggeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CACL_3VH+9i4-yxYA9b46KGWgS-0ka6hvCAPpj3RRJC6CAoZ+BA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16400029-02ff-e63e-7897-d4ab926788c5@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 16:00:02 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACL_3VH+9i4-yxYA9b46KGWgS-0ka6hvCAPpj3RRJC6CAoZ+BA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/SVI1aHl8V_pmu83K1XhUoeE4KeI>
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: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 04:00:11 -0000

Hi,

Both segment routing and OAM are mentioned as use cases in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-limited-domains-09.
These are typically features that will be on the fast path by
configuration in a particular domain, and will not work properly
outside such a domain.

Regards
   Brian

On 15-Jul-19 14:53, C. M. Heard wrote:
> We've been down that road before. That's how the existing HbH Options Header was supposed to work when it was defined in RFC 2460 (and RFC 1883 before that). Mandating the behavior in those specs did not make it happen (and that's why RFC 8200 relaxed the requirement). Why do you think that mandating the behavior in a new spec (with a new Next Header type) will result in a different outcome?
> 
> Additionally, it is not true that a new Next Header type with Hop-by-Hop behavior is in any way backward compatible. RFCs 1883, 2360, and 8200 specifically disallow that, and existing IPv6 nodes have the assumption that the only Next Header type with HbH behavior is 0x00 "baked in."
> 
> Mike Heard
> 
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 7:04 PM Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <pengshuping@huawei.com <mailto:pengshuping@huawei.com>> wrote:
> 
>     The draft says that “The Options can be shared with the original Hop-by-Hop Options Header.” Not the same. ____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Basically, the options are categorized based on their requirements of different processing by being placed into different HBH option headers. In the new HBH header if present, all the carried options will be processed at wire speed instead of being dispatched to CPU.  ____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Shuping ____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     *From:*C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com <mailto:heard@pobox.com>]
>     *Sent:* Friday, July 12, 2019 11:40 AM
>     *To:* Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <pengshuping@huawei.com <mailto:pengshuping@huawei.com>>
>     *Cc:* Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com <mailto:markzzzsmith@gmail.com>>; 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>>; Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com <mailto:lizhenbin@huawei.com>>
>     *Subject:* Re: Comments on draft-li-6man-enhanced-extension-header Sec 2.1____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 7:19 PM Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <pengshuping@huawei.com <mailto:pengshuping@huawei.com>> wrote:____
> 
>         We could do engineering at each option to indicate every router how to treat it. However, that will not be very efficient since each option type needs to be gone through and checked against the preset configuration.____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     The new header that you propose uses the same options, so how would it be different?____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Mike Heard____
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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