Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] [v6ops] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-05

Nick Hilliard <> Sat, 20 February 2021 19:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 271E63A084A; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 11:10:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b-InGE1BMiLC; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 11:10:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 082CA3A0839; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 11:10:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crumpet.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 11KJAHrm064972 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 20 Feb 2021 19:10:18 GMT (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be crumpet.local
To: Tom Herbert <>
Cc: Fernando Gont <>, Gorry Fairhurst <>, IPv6 Operations <>,,,, Brian E Carpenter <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Nick Hilliard <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 19:10:16 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.46
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] [v6ops] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 19:10:31 -0000

Hi Tom,

Tom Herbert wrote on 20/02/2021 15:32:
> This is reflected in the statement: "If an IPv6 header chain is
> sufficiently long that it exceeds the packet look-up capacity of the
> router, the router might be unable to determine how the packet should
> be handled, and thus could resort to dropping the packet." It's not to
> me clear what "sufficiently long" means;

Is this just an issue of dialect?  The term "If an IPv6 header chain is 
sufficiently long that..." just means "If an IPv6 header chain is long 
enough that..."

> in particular, such a
> statement isn't helpful to the host stack developer trying to figure
> out if the packets they're creating will be properly forwarded.

That's something that should be addressed in a future ID.  Right now 
we're concentrating on documenting the problem.