[6man] #11 (rfc2460bis): HBH header handling
"6man issue tracker" <trac+6man@trac.tools.ietf.org> Sun, 12 June 2016 18:34 UTC
Return-Path: <trac+6man@trac.tools.ietf.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 B280012D1D2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 11:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] 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 6kbTBOKmqpkG for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 11:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (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 599CA12D0AA for <6man@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 11:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:58893 helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <trac+6man@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1bCACv-0000E9-8S; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 11:34:01 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: 6man issue tracker <trac+6man@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.5
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.5, by Edgewall Software
To: otroan@employees.org
X-Trac-Project: 6man
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 18:34:01 -0000
X-URL: https://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/
Subject: [6man] #11 (rfc2460bis): HBH header handling
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/trac/ticket/11
Message-ID: <063.aca6a5e1e9dd0002f4ae621ecbec293f@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 11
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: otroan@employees.org, 6man@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+6man@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/pEtq5e9UE0FPzVO_8f0-lrPnCTE>
Cc: 6man@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Reply-To: 6man@ietf.org
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: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 18:34:03 -0000
#11: HBH header handling 2460bis relaxes the must to a should. And incorporates a paragraph from 7045 giving performance considerations. The use of a _should_ process combined with a _may_ drop is not elegant. The second paragraph can also be read as a licence to drop. After having thought about the text in draft-ietf-6man-hbh-header- handling, I propose the following instead: OLD: The exception referred to in the preceding paragraph is the Hop-by- Hop Options header, which carries information that should be examined and processed by every node along a packet's delivery path, including the source and destination nodes. The Hop-by-Hop Options header, when present, must immediately follow the IPv6 header. Its presence is indicated by the value zero in the Next Header field of the IPv6 header. It should be noted that due to performance restrictions nodes may ignore the Hop-by-Hop Option header, drop packets containing a hop- by-hop option header, or assign packets containing a hop-by-hop option header to a slow processing path. Designers planning to use a hop-by-hop option need to be aware of this likely behaviour. NEW: The exception referred to in the preceding paragraph is the Hop-by- Hop Options header, which carries information that may be examined and processed by nodes along a packet's delivery path, including the source and destination nodes. The Hop-by-Hop Options header, when present, must immediately follow the IPv6 header. Its presence is indicated by the value zero in the Next Header field of the IPv6 header. NOTE: While RFC2460 required that all nodes must process the Hop-by- Hop Options header, it is now expected that nodes only process the Hop-by-Hop Options header if explicitly configured to do so. In short replace the should we a may, making HBH options header purely optional. Note that section 4.8 in 2460bis already uses a may. I also suggest we remove the 7045 paragraph on performance considerations, that's highly subjective. 3. Section 4.3 HBH OLD: The Hop-by-Hop Options header is used to carry optional information that should be examined by every node along a packet's delivery path. The Hop-by-Hop Options header is identified by a Next Header value of 0 in the IPv6 header, and has the following format: NEW: The Hop-by-Hop Options header is used to carry optional information that may be examined by every node along a packet's delivery path. The Hop-by-Hop Options header is identified by a Next Header value of 0 in the IPv6 header, and has the following format: Same change as above. -- ----------------------------------+----------------- Reporter: otroan@employees.org | Owner: Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: rfc2460bis | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: ----------------------------------+----------------- Ticket URL: <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/trac/ticket/11> 6man <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/>
- Re: [6man] #11 (rfc2460bis): HBH header handling 6man issue tracker
- RE: [6man] #11 (rfc2460bis): HBH header handling Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6man] #11 (rfc2460bis): HBH header handling Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [6man] #11 (rfc2460bis): HBH header handling Bob Hinden
- RE: [6man] #11 (rfc2460bis): HBH header handling Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: [6man] #11 (rfc2460bis): HBH header handling Bob Hinden
- [6man] #11 (rfc2460bis): HBH header handling 6man issue tracker