Feedback on the use of Hop-by-Hop options extension header (draft-francois-dots-ipv6-signal-option-01)

Jérôme François <jerome.francois@inria.fr> Wed, 08 February 2017 09:17 UTC

Return-Path: <jerome.francois@inria.fr>
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 CD1F11299E5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 01:17:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 7wb2DpFwsyFD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 01:17:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) (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 1086B126579 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 01:17:46 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,346,1477954800"; d="scan'208";a="212463853"
Received: from marly.loria.fr (HELO [152.81.8.41]) ([152.81.8.41]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA; 08 Feb 2017 10:17:41 +0100
Message-ID: <589AE235.6080808@inria.fr>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 10:17:41 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgRnJhbsOnb2lz?= <jerome.francois@inria.fr>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Feedback on the use of Hop-by-Hop options extension header (draft-francois-dots-ipv6-signal-option-01)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/_Bf2xzPsGQGDzAw8Gxq-HLc8ttE>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 09:17:49 -0000

Dear all,

We are working on a DOTS draft about using the Hop-by-Hop option header
to encapsulated DDoS signaling  within network to enabel a kind of
epidemic propagation
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-francois-dots-ipv6-signal-option-01)

Some comments have been raised considering the real use of the
Hop-by-Hop option. We would like to ask you your feedback about using it
for very specific signaling among trusted parties. In particular, do you
know any reference to a particular use of Hop-by-Hop in a real case.

We have also followed the mailing list discussion about header insertion,
which obviously concerns our approach since we are extracting and inserting
some info in headers on the paths. Even if this is is limited to specific 
routers in a single domain, we understand that it can create problems and
should maybe use packet encapsulation.

Best regards,