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

So I'm going to call the emperor naked.
What I think you and Gert actually want is for EHs to be completely deprecated, so that the TCP and UDP headers are always in the same place in the packet, so that hardware can look at them for the purposes of dropping them in hardware or as inputs into LB. Is that the case?
What I'm curious about then is how do you handle DDoSes that are using IP fragments, where there are no TCP or UDP headers ports to look at?
I'm also curious about how you LB packets (either at layer 2 or layer 3) that don't have TCP or UDP headers, or aren't IP. I've seen LB become completely ineffective at layer 2 because a customer was using MPLS between two routers, so no MAC address variation, and no IP addresses and no TCP or UDP ports to look at.
In fact, given the trouble LAG has caused me in the past 2 years (LAG member links that are not current members are supposed to be considered by the bridge as normal bridge ports, so if you want to avoid loops across the links that are candidate members of the LAG, the IEEE expect you to be running STP of some form across them...), I'm a big fan of the quote on the last slide of this presentation:
"IEEE 802.3ad Link Aggregation(LAG)what it is, and what it is not"
http://www.ieee802.org/3/hssg/public/apr07/frazier_01_0407.pdf

"LAG is good, but it’s not as good as a fatter pipe."

      From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
 To: v6ops@ietf.org 
 Sent: Wednesday, 22 April 2015, 2:56
 Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world: clarification text

On 21/04/2015 16:51, Gert Doering wrote:
> I'm fully at a loss to express my amazement in polite words, so I'm just
> *out* of this discussion now.

Fully agreed on this + that this thread needs to end.  The lack of
operational reality being displayed is pretty severe.

Nick

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops