IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world: clarification text

sthaug@nethelp.no Wed, 22 April 2015 07:12 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3259D1B3279 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 hSLCnse2uQZH for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 560E01B326E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 83612 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2015 07:12:27 -0000
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (HELO localhost) (195.1.209.33) by bizet.nethelp.no with SMTP; 22 Apr 2015 07:12:27 -0000
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 09:12:27 +0200
Message-Id: <20150422.091227.74668510.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <1358113193.2147388.1429685168609.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <55374092.9000406@bogus.com> <1358113193.2147388.1429685168609.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/7I1nyVhf78IvA-NzrX-82CZa7Bo>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world: clarification text
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 07:12:33 -0000

> So I wasn't naively asking those questions, I know what the answers were likely to be.
> What I'd really like is for people to actually say what they want, which I think is an Internet with packets that look like
> [IPv6 Fixed Hdr][TCP Hdr], total size <= 1280[IPv6 Fixed Hdr][UDP Hdr], total size <= 1280
> and that is it.
> The consequence would be to deprecate many existing protocols and making them work over fragment unnecessary TCP or UDP.

I see no reason to deprecate IPv6 EHs. But I need 

 [IPv6 Fixed Hdr] + [IPv6 EHs] + [L4 Hdr] <= hardware inspection limit

in order for the router hardware to be able to filter based on TCP/UDP
headers at line rate. With current equipment, I would expect hardware
inspection limit to be in the range 256 to 1280 bytes.

Steinar Haug, AS 2116

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email