IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Thu, 01 November 2012 20:04 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 889E821F95F9 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 13:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.508
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.909, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k8kprIioq56z for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 13:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from darkstar.isi.edu (darkstar.isi.edu [128.9.128.127]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12B9721F93B3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 13:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by darkstar.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qA1K414i003995 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 1 Nov 2012 13:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5092D5B1.2000201@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:04:01 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <CAKD1Yr13cNspdWvTaXxHt4R_8UB-CKeA4nq8_XWrkbFGCgW7Gg@mail.gmail.com> <5090DECF.3050100@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1dUy-f78A2+kfA7NjpzD0WQRT8iwqGYAm5A=Erodpn-A@mail.gmail.com> <20121031.122110.41655699.sthaug@nethelp.no> <50910E41.2030100@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0mTTcVeq+Qf0fLv3UCBP_90QmStkK3Ha4tDdm3FxJjVA@mail.gmail.com> <50915F86.7050304@gmail.com> <509165B8.404@si6networks.com> <509169C2.9040208@isi.edu> <50916F21.6030303@si6networks.com> <509174F1.8080809@isi.edu> <50924264.7040300@gmail.com> <5092C0BA.4090000@isi.edu> <5092C846.5090009@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5092C846.5090009@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 20:04:33 -0000

On 11/1/2012 12:06 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
>> In the case of C, the router needs to keep looking at subsequent options
>> until one of three things happens:
>>
>>      1. a known HBH option is seen
>>          indicating there are HBH options
>>      2. a known E2E option is seen
>>          indicating there are no HBH options
>>      3. there are no more options
>>          indicating there are no HBH options
>>
>> As a result, it's entirely possible that a router could need to parse
>> the entire option chain before it can determine whether there are any
>> HBH options.
>
> Yes, because of the point I just mentioned. That's a bug IMHO.
> However, the observed problems come from middleboxes that don't
> parse regular extension headers, not hbh option headers.

Isn't the real bug the fact that the option numbers don't indicate 
whether an option is HBH or not?

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email