Re: [spring] IPv4 EH proposal

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 9/9/19 14:07, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> 
> Le 07/09/2019 à 13:32, Robert Raszuk a écrit :
>> /* Adjusting the subject to reflect the topic */
>>
>> Ok ... I looked at the new wave of mails in wrong order :) 
>>
>> I like this proposal: 
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-herbert-ipv4-eh-01 
>>
>> And have absolutely nothing against progressing it further - it looks
>> on the surface to be more efficient then sr-mpls over IP - but how
>> many bits are we saving needs to be calculated to state if cost of
>> introducing new encoding justifies the additional control plane,
>> protocol and platform efforts
>>
>> In fact if we would get to the consensus of using SRH with SID & BSID
>> to be of fixed 20 bits it can reuse a lot of mechanism build for
>> sr-mpls in any commercial router.
>>
>>  It is just a bit amazing that insertion of EHs into IPv4 would be
>> less problematic that in the case of IPv6 :) Maybe due to allowed
>> fragmentation. 
>>
>> As to the host dropping packets due to unknown protocol - let's
>> observe that SR domain would clean such EH before passing packets
>> further. 
>>
>> Many thx,
>> R.
> 
> When I learned IPv4 existed it was already very late to suggest anything
> to it.  I learned that many things were designed into it at its origin,
> but few things got actually deployed.
> 
> The example of loose source route, and strict source route, was given as
> an example that people tried to do but it never worked at scale.  So it
> got filtered and disappeared.

SSR and LSR have well known security implications -- hence the
filtering. SImilarly, RHT0 was obsoleted for the same reason.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492