IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: HBH Obsolete? (was Review of draft-ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling-01)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 03 April 2016 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 2A21B12D5A4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 13:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 I_Dw0wQOr5MK for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 13:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x236.google.com (mail-pa0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::236]) (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 61A0612D551 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 13:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-x236.google.com with SMTP id zm5so129336126pac.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Apr 2016 13:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=inlpn/O/DnP48JzMdEVJqRm8UQi5Fyg7AR/KULOwS1s=; b=OT+xacyD1TZr1r+EI6X90lBw2rFM2ADgpaY3VYRZLPWT/qdRsEPSlnLKiG69vF7QAN BEKBJZnFmrZCiXsjdJLdrh2Rg9L45lIBkuL/bKNpHUwjKHhtMQP3Osde24fmCvnC6A+c qE4yI0W5RrUsrWE0kR0e+UADALHvQhk5asFneQWgKQ77aMyNspC9DUqsPc5HaWUufHJ9 6EuIQj+xT5ZmzchhTypkRFfp9a1c7xCUGNEYjX+k9gACmb4ajBGZ+czYB079HIlwIH58 ut2yDP51jBki/idIUMkOx4bpUR2ozAg196QL3wMvcVvE/xi5yVuhvANkVAMwfakPJevY VqbA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=inlpn/O/DnP48JzMdEVJqRm8UQi5Fyg7AR/KULOwS1s=; b=JNJzlFukIo0JgNmjCF20H+T8VNOkNdO8VaO5vaWrpgqEkrKRD2IHfx0jQletXqjswU E58JOmyixm+wBUiGyySVhmjzUrMw9q27raspQ5uUcVCg7LgXpFXlzioedtapNxaO8m7H Mp7qaLUInU1WS5W+PxXeJ9BFB64UzYiZ76ShFIQxUvq5WTa8oS/sH7y6lM6msXAkZpdU i66zyc1LDSEJKaRPjlDUjb32z8lL1y5VLDiZSJPi57CyLI0ID1AFzH/XM9sOKJ2x7UZs K7+lmqmTU5YmvMgz0cY0KHr5ntNn4y6unE54HmFPwtV6JlPc7x3FYzH3g2UWVne5rzmO +sAQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJL+ajjIabauHSozpunoXzJ4MIkN/V3M++TfROPpniffaBPId7GBY/2dFDceF4GQew==
X-Received: by 10.66.55.6 with SMTP id n6mr48470087pap.35.1459715581992; Sun, 03 Apr 2016 13:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:483d:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:483d:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 8sm34193979pfk.69.2016.04.03.13.32.58 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 03 Apr 2016 13:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: HBH Obsolete? (was Review of draft-ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling-01)
To: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, ipv6 <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <CACL_3VGYFe4O0qkmgY4aCpdMQn2xiDK2rvO4T6t77CFjxi0YbA@mail.gmail.com> <CACL_3VGcnP2pkmm8MGOHDb11cYG-VSF76Qx2vwJXBdisbYgOQg@mail.gmail.com> <20999.1458930949@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <56F5FC7B.7010601@gmail.com> <BLUPR05MB19853C94E92E801FAFC87076AE9C0@BLUPR05MB1985.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <57017DF8.2090601@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 08:32:56 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BLUPR05MB19853C94E92E801FAFC87076AE9C0@BLUPR05MB1985.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/yN4uzoD-RKRh9h4pTYWDGcgmiKY>
Cc: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 20:33:04 -0000

On 04/04/2016 03:04, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> Even of somebody saw a Jumbogram at an IXP, it wouldn't be so bad. The IPv6 header would have:
> 
> - a packet length of 0
> - a next header of HBH
> 
> If the receiving node didn't recognize Jumbograms, wouldn't it discard the packet and send an ICMP Parameter Problem to the source?

Most likely. But my point really was: who cares? Anyone who sends Jumbograms
without knowing that the path supports them will lose anyway.

     Brian
                                                                                                        Ron
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
>> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 11:06 PM
>> To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>; ipv6 <ipv6@ietf.org>
>> Cc: C. M. Heard <heard@pobox.com>
>> Subject: Re: HBH Obsolete? (was Review of draft-ietf-6man-hbh-header-
>> handling-01)
>>
>> On 26/03/2016 07:35, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>
>>> C. M. Heard <heard@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>     > Indeed, the question arises whether allowing a router to ignore these
>>>     > options beaks them, or not.  Clearly so for Jumbo Payload,
>>
>> I dispute that, as far as the real world goes. Nobody ever expected the
>> jumbo payload to be used outside a "consenting adults" scenario; the
>> requirement to send back ICMP on discard is really icing on the jumbo cake.
>> As some words in
>> RFC3765 tells you, the path has to be pretty much hand-crafted:
>>
>> "  On links with configurable MTUs, the MTU must not be configured to a
>>    value greater than 65,575 octets if there are nodes attached to that
>>    link that do not support the Jumbo Payload option and it can not be
>>    guaranteed that the Jumbo Payload option will not be sent to those
>>    nodes."
>>
>> So in practice, it really doesn't matter what the non-supporting router does.
>> Did anybody ever see one of these things at a peering link or an IXP? I very
>> much doubt it.
>>
>>     Brian
>>
>>
>>>     > but it's
>>>     > unclear to me why RPL, MPL, and DFF need to be specified as other
>> than
>>>     > ignore if unrecognized.
>>>
>>> I agree that it's unclear if there is real benefit.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software
>> Works
>>> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> ipv6@ietf.org
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> .
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email