IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Future of hop-by-hop options ? (was: DISCUSS on draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-08)

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Thu, 12 August 2021 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@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 ED6403A1794; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 08:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 SubSLsmAaCYl; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 08:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32b.google.com (mail-wm1-x32b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32b]) (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 DD6083A176B; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 08:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id l7-20020a1c2507000000b002e6be5d86b3so1490582wml.3; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 08:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=VNHZ+/CxK0rWDh3K78fnpDbGILh+n8IIqLYzL3pViF0=; b=jY3B0fIjAXfaQZBjeudMudQwBBfFnLkc6CfKBkWBM4f5LFYZ6kuIyGcmlMJNloe6Zo TuuoHsiMkaj+a3Yi6x++UJ8wO9u9gEQWKmeIris7WAf6CBdL1YR+boxj4mt9JodDQnkR FfpkNit6KYN+laevXSdeGhAQ1icc2da37CyQ5Q3jZliuQxlFk6GNoO1XQjQhGFq4RYxc zxXnfpdRO55+4DUC+qzzE7B0FHbtv6RNNWjtRfzZFFuvGuUBhbrC2inrQvESlKtXffmR vZ9MrCElFKwp+iKGlMKl1+lKsP8ORR6ITW5yI+5lPhXkbmiqHA0W543+me+YY/kHLLs4 cGeg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=VNHZ+/CxK0rWDh3K78fnpDbGILh+n8IIqLYzL3pViF0=; b=mWCglbzMlq7m03NvPjbMis4IdikvnmdxUbTwm04ysUqtJc60ZdVlLMz4wXtpHeA4A2 dmFI7tJ90X/HX16VIpioI38cGVaNdVxctWgOk/l/D0q7W7JTfiQ7RZATkfSatOdHnoXS gTL3knCUwBcUkuda08NIDw5TbwzZbsj4ggV5zoyoP5u2EqWuuQHaCJjOuvesTlclbyWw llmXjSausdvIA0HoGCalcnQqCzji144tcVMYJvlWcIvQndpV5dW94+bFnYB2qLs59m0/ rGf9KAUHohPk88COwHesAf9lNWGcMHlPZrl7d5jt3NAAe/IyQx48Gs5fJQ3foEsW3Mhy QeVA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532hQZDb3rnC9BOmHxjw/2BTs4fcSG+k8pYyUpdp6hjz4pDKXxod wXXsaaNAj93HExBPOI7e2PA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxKeXJZiVg0tDnvwE26wDqUaKrGukNyIVykcFCazIkVqn/gZbocxeynnyA3xOFTEDxxyJLpFg==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:1dc4:: with SMTP id d187mr910230wmd.1.1628783307402; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 08:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.199] (c-73-223-183-113.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.223.183.113]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u6sm3234885wrp.83.2021.08.12.08.48.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Aug 2021 08:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <09E29CAA-4906-4837-B1F7-77F1A063B761@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D9AC949A-DE6B-47E7-B2A8-F0B98C8E790D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
Subject: Re: Future of hop-by-hop options ? (was: DISCUSS on draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-08)
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 08:48:23 -0700
In-Reply-To: <b54e15f9-2e99-b227-d099-37442fb8b2ec@foobar.org>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@ietf.org>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
References: <20210812151750.GA12485@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <b54e15f9-2e99-b227-d099-37442fb8b2ec@foobar.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/v8AqEv-whCOMM_atulZ7jm3hzyM>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 12 Aug 2021 15:48:46 -0000

> On Aug 12, 2021, at 8:42 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> 
> Toerless Eckert wrote on 12/08/2021 16:17:
>> I was wondering if/what we had anything written up already yet to document
>> the architectural challenges of the IPv6 hop-by-hop behavior and
>> expectations. If not, we should.
> 
> at a more general level, rfc7872 and draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops describe issues with EHs.

As well as:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hinden-6man-hbh-processing/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peng-v6ops-hbh-05

There is ongoing work to improve the situation.

Bob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email