Re: Limited Domains:

IME problem is deeper and I don't only see it on v6 either. There is a
class of folks that are protocol designers and there is a (growing in last
couple years?) class of folks saying, "oh, I see so many bytes, I can do so
many things in those bits and damn' the torpedoes and semantics" or even
worse "I can stick my stuff in somewhere in the packet header, worst case
let's add TLVs to packet header". But generally it's been going on since
time immemorial, DSCP, 8+8, BIER mask encoding in v6 address and so on.

Thankfully we still have strong WGs/chairs in many places that try to keep
the finger in the dyke (mostly) but it's frustrating for people with line
speed silicon to see lots folks pushing for those things who have no
understanding of limitations of header pipelines, impact of shifting
offsets, huge security filters etc on the ultimate power consumption, size
and finally price of the very electrons delivered to carry the bit that
writes those emails ;-)

my 2c

-- tony

On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:01 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13-Apr-21 06:13, Tom Herbert wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:50 AM Ron Bonica
> > <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Toerless,
> >>
> >> You say that "we simply should look into new, more flexible, extensible
> base header, backward compatible to IPv6/Internet (but with code points
> assigned to functionality, as we do with extension headers for example)."
> >>
> >> The idea is intriguing, but it leads to the following questions:
> >>
> >> - How do you make this new base header backwards compatible with
> IPv6-classic?
> >> - Is draft-filsfils-6man-structured-flow-label an example of this new
> base header?
> >>
> > Right, it's hard to imagine that a new base header could be used
> > without creating a new IP version which is at least twenty years just
> > to get off the ground. I suppose the idea might be to have special
> > value in the next protocol that indicates an extension to the base IP
> > header, but then doesn't that just degenerate to to be another
> > extension header?
>
> Yes. And while we're at it, let's use Huffman coding for IP addresses.
>
> Whatever we do, we won't get away from actual line-speed implementations
> being constrained by current integrated circuit technology. So every few
> years, with a new generation of technology, the constraints change, just
> as the Strowger switch revolutionized telephony in 1891.
>
>    Brian
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>