Hop-by-hop options [Re: Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis]

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 02 March 2017 21:25 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 3BDF0120724; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 13:25:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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_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 MzNltsrqsMIc; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 13:25:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x243.google.com (mail-pg0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::243]) (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 891B1129653; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 13:25:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x243.google.com with SMTP id 25so10471770pgy.3; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 13:25:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wrpkXdbuFy/lEQdmjFMnGDGMh+TCfvxXAl/M3cqevEs=; b=phjJMjjxpwzj/eBpDcNPR5SuNjM9GQLxaX8DkcxhQUnpgk4vq+2K25EYDbW4U+rWpy NyRhEpq39hJfE4zwpMs5j7eK1HEU5TSWYcNqvSDhBgVVMcNmiftfTiDKxKOOIGV0FmNA KNrFkuyT35mUMxgDm9CYeqQxFxMK6XQ1OwxCkwWmvHsIhAaq5OPRc+0tjXucghu14bmO +GQVDbDn7gNkmeAv+HnWCpoI3QbUQnjaX5lNWF23k94uIVxdLg0ndY/pd6vubifan/eX Fen+27bf0bRw9Y87Jaj/GcaVOFoA33pvzNPn3YnTPO+DCvqfRlPdM8hCSK8vh8NwzCMU KhmA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=wrpkXdbuFy/lEQdmjFMnGDGMh+TCfvxXAl/M3cqevEs=; b=hHfGXPrB4wi1jgUvzRrhxED2slo/vp12+w/f2blY3tndyiuGRy1mc1qblBVxTGcu8o mHSnt60YLQwSxFEF3Wefx82IhF8lOz18mVNW9ydswT9upqzGlBt9aVNzmZ8zM20uCM50 QMGvtE4y3o8BwtS5gTV7sIMp8msyAPlUAmHmyINTOYJqCrrk3OTXTEz4Csoi/QbxLUps ypeWQPGOIuyCHp1NIBZuz5P4o32JgA453+a2IrXtbpAyyNP++puqN+C7+wZfwmBgR2Ez IFkvMVIYK67mM8IADBPOq0WtEM9EJz9AQPLhtyDiQzVTFK2mMgIZqIFqfTxDNZ06lSz6 cSkA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kwN1ePMdMvwvx4xdeq1sq+Hs99/nAkSvuv3jLDy0PASa+gaZ+ugbFxBK5x67rmdQ==
X-Received: by 10.84.236.9 with SMTP id q9mr21268067plk.96.1488489899989; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 13:24:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.21] ([118.149.111.252]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x15sm19000828pgo.56.2017.03.02.13.24.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 02 Mar 2017 13:24:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Hop-by-hop options [Re: Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis]
To: "Papadimitriou, Dimitri (Nokia - BE)" <dimitri.papadimitriou@nokia-bell-labs.com>, "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org>
References: <9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461FC61A4621@szxema506-mbs.china.huawei.com> <84675BAA8C49154AB81E2587BE8BDF833D3556AD@FR711WXCHMBA07.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <84675BAA8C49154AB81E2587BE8BDF833D36EDAA@FR711WXCHMBA07.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <6a33c1d3-9a9a-674b-1fc7-a1bc17aafead@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 10:25:03 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <84675BAA8C49154AB81E2587BE8BDF833D36EDAA@FR711WXCHMBA07.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/gtf2xOihjmdR-k07_E3zgZ_4-VE>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 21:25:02 -0000

On 03/03/2017 10:02, Papadimitriou, Dimitri (Nokia - BE) wrote:
...
> Section 4.8: states "New hop-by-hop options are not recommended because nodes may be configured to ignore the Hop-by-Hop Option header, drop packets containing a hop-by-hop header" does this configuration change because options are new or old ? there seems to be confusion here between "new vs. existing" options and "intermediate nodes MAY be configured to ignore/drop packets with these options included". 

Middleboxes *might* be configured to do something sensible with existing HbH options (such as ignoring them) and something annoying with unknown new ones (such as kicking them to the slow path or dropping the packet). So yes, the situation is worse for new options than for ones that have been defined years ago. But they are both risky.

   Brian