IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D Action: draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-02.txt

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 30 November 2017 13:51 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 A222412947C; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 05:51:46 -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_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 gspAzq3hl4tX; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 05:51:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4089B129485; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 05:51:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.3.67] (109-155-16-190.fibertel.com.ar [190.16.155.109]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 16A7381854; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:51:23 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-02.txt
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion@ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <151120281628.21912.1099097760493570225@ietfa.amsl.com> <4ca3fd6b-4cd6-f6ac-ce03-415c2c9a4c3c@gmail.com> <f4425076-2f76-5713-2819-9d26671d56bb@si6networks.com> <4E92F160-C586-4C7B-BAEF-97C204856A8A@employees.org>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <bc9d7f57-8687-7f85-8ac3-49751683232b@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 21:14:10 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4E92F160-C586-4C7B-BAEF-97C204856A8A@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/gzZlD1SDaJ3NuFzz-gz6--0orR0>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 30 Nov 2017 13:51:46 -0000

On 11/30/2017 08:45 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
>>
>> IMO, #1 thing to be discussed is why normal encapsulation wouldn't work
>> -- this is the standard, straightforward and most clean approach.
> 
> The best example I've heard is when you don't have a natural tunnel endpoint to encapsulate to.

What's a natural tunnel-endpoint here? Aren't you expecting such
endpoint to exist, to remove the inserted EH, after all? (and listing it
in the RH)

I seem to remember some folks arguing that the rationale for EH
insertion is that performance go to hell if they do proper encapsulation...

-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email