IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Usable extension headers [Re: New Version Notification for draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-08.txt]

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Thu, 28 November 2019 11:03 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 8DDB71207FE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 03:03:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 biXgJcduppiQ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 03:03:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9C51120801 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 03:03:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (77.18.59.96.tmi.telenormobil.no [77.18.59.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 297F04E11A4D; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 11:03:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D3F92407A90; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 12:03:01 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
Subject: Re: Usable extension headers [Re: New Version Notification for draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-08.txt]
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <6A41AB04-F56B-46E1-8B8B-3E24B928A042@jisc.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 12:03:01 +0100
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1B629A88-AE10-4F65-8D3D-FD2702B6D63D@employees.org>
References: <157422734071.5406.14331301768750185617.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <851F7007-3DD5-42F3-8884-8842DA07EE53@cisco.com> <1cfd682f-d6bc-a697-38a7-933aa0485b8a@si6networks.com> <D4436EF5-2B97-44A4-915D-EF7611590B51@steffann.nl> <ccf6cbe6-c837-64e3-b25e-d3fa8e3b7bcb@si6networks.com> <E68CE93F-4C3E-44FB-B4B5-7C6FC6799E47@gmail.com> <554baf9b-2a7f-8098-8203-e7d3277b549b@gmail.com> <CALx6S36L5AWEaXmccpKoENxOEv-XRCmTsq1bCqi06J_YgJGZdg@mail.gmail.com> <ecb3c877-c347-fd3a-86de-8f05fe8b7459@gmail.com> <CALx6S353m9b9b2b+Yt3x-g=BZuE6vwcOoGGfq4BPONVscnQ=xg@mail.gmail.com> <d9c2e11b-53b4-e281-e869-28802a76c72f@gmail.com> <CALx6S346p=M09ZPY_xM2X3gkPp_0KUVZU_u4UeLUagomRnjhPw@mail.gmail.com> <79d22e5a-0145-9ad9-e965-d3744b58c3bf@gmail.com> <d791c9eee34c4e019292fc74d629217c@boeing.com> <5d2af468-be61-d2ca-5bf0-35d5f71fdb6c@gmail.com> <6A41AB04-F56B-46E1-8B8B-3E24B928A042@jisc.ac.uk>
To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/VyZdi-IMEt9REzGmikFbd89S9SU>
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, 28 Nov 2019 11:03:09 -0000

> We also tested against Alexa Top N targets for www, dns and mx, where perhaps Andrew’s tests were between end systems that were more “cooperative” across intermediate open / transit networks, so his values would be more akin to the “best case” numbers.
> 
> Certainly not a bad time to re-run tests, and maybe run tests between co-operative end points/domains.  Nearly 4 years have passed since the RFC7872 tests were run.  How much have things changed?

RFC7872 was (IMNSHO) based on the flawed belief that any end-host/service end-point should accept arbitrary extension headers.
The document offers little with regards to the deployment of extension headers within a limited _network_ domain.

I'm all in support for continuing monitoring and testing. Testing the "right thing"(tm) and understanding the results is a discipline on its own. If there is any learning that I can take from 7872, is that the RFC format isn't the right channel for measurement results.

Best regards,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email