IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Sat, 18 April 2015 11:23 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 D51281A6F29 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 gi3B52GuWeku for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B95E31A6F17 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: <v6ops@ietf.org>
Received: from cupcake.foobar.org ([IPv6:2001:4d68:2002:100:0:0:0:110]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t3IBNGsE078125 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Apr 2015 12:23:17 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.netability.ie: Host [IPv6:2001:4d68:2002:100:0:0:0:110] claimed to be cupcake.foobar.org
Message-ID: <55323EA4.3090107@foobar.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 12:23:16 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <552CD2CE.3070801@si6networks.com> <D1567F3B.43843%evyncke@cisco.com> <41AF40EF-C4CB-41F7-8BC4-567A02A49FF4@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <41AF40EF-C4CB-41F7-8BC4-567A02A49FF4@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/JmjqtrTlEKkIdpvKyzJ0idElGVw>
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: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 11:23:22 -0000

On 18/04/2015 02:46, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> Well, question for you. If we follow RFC 2460, the router in the middle
> doesn’t know whether the header is there or not. The only systems that
> should have a performance impact are systems that parse to them or
> interpret them. 

layer 4 information is routinely parsed to extract n-tuples in order to
create lag / ecmp hashes for load balancing.  I.e. we have a requirement
for routers to interpret ipv6 packet headers on a per-hop basis, and make
consistent routing decisions based on this analysis.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email