Re: Turning routers into hosts (Re: Death by extension header (was:RE: New Version Notification for draft-li-6man-hbh-fwd-hdr-00.txt))

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 13/7/20 21:13, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 14-Jul-20 09:23, Mark Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 06:02, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 03:00:44PM -0300, Fernando Gont wrote:
>>>> On 10/7/20 15:32, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>>>>> IMHO: See my email earlier in the thread about punting stuff to slow-path, especially when/before
>>>>> you figure out that you should have just ignored something at linerarte.
>>>>>
>>>>> Aka: not sufficiently prescriptive RFCs + bad implementations == extension header based features killed in deployments.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. And add to that that the EH structure itself seems to be rather
>>>> unfriendly with some popular hardware architectures. (unless with "not
>>>> sufficiently prescriptive RFCs" you are meaning to set the maximum EH-header
>>>> chain length to some sane value that folks might agree to comply with).
>>>
>>> I think we might want to start with a draft collecting what we think to
>>> kow about the problem and figure out if we can structure it accordingl
>>> to make sense out of it to make progress that is not just incrementally fixing
>>> one single bit.
>>>
>>
>> I think one of the first sections needs to be titled:
>>
>> "Turning Routers into Hosts"
> 
> Are you sure you don't mean "Turning Routers into Packet Manglers"?

FWIW, draft-gon6-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops describes why devices need 
to peek into the packet. It doesn't talk about any kind of mangling... 
and the only manipulation it refers to is the potential dropping of packets.

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1