Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-wkumari-long-headers-01.txt

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Fri, 05 July 2013 15:29 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 B5B5911E8132 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 08:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.42
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.42 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.179, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kmtnsr2D7iu3 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 08:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED79011E813F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 08:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.35.3.4] (pc3.shinagawaphvod2-unet.ocn.ne.jp [220.110.141.59]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r65FRjEK013760 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 5 Jul 2013 08:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51D6E5F1.3020205@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 08:27:45 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie>
References: <20130703235521.17726.15468.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0BDA30D8-AEDC-4E18-8ACE-64A032305F07@kumari.net> <1372897534.35448.YahooMailNeo@web2802.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <CAD6AjGSGeNHPUs9+F6OOAeDOy_FZpTOGkH6viX_fENca4H8X0g@mail.gmail.com> <1372899240.80312.YahooMailNeo@web2803.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <51D614F6.4030000@isi.edu> <51D6A1C9.8030208@inex.ie> <51D6C2FF.4090103@isi.edu> <51D6C509.7040806@inex.ie> <51D6C66E.5060901@isi.edu> <51D6C7D2.6020504@inex.ie> <51D6CBB9.2060200@isi.edu> <51D6D2FF.40305@inex.ie> <51D6D646.7080102@isi.edu> <51D6DE34.2060800@inex.ie>
In-Reply-To: <51D6DE34.2060800@inex.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-wkumari-long-headers-01.txt
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: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 15:29:00 -0000

On 7/5/2013 7:54 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> of course it depends on the header chain length.  It
> depends on plenty of other things too, but header chain length is one of them.

It would be useful to start by explaining:

a) what traffic you need to inspect?
	- to the router
	- through the router

Which one determines whether you need to suggest limiting header chains 
for all traffic or just traffic to your router.

b) what is the problem with inspecting traffic?

	- the length of the chain
	- how many 'links' in the chain

the former is a memory capacity and bandwidth problem;
the latter is a processing speed problem

Neither one has anything to do with whether you use ASICs; they both 
have to do with whether you are space or time limited and in what resource.

Which one is the problem determines whether you need to limit the length 
of the chain or the number of links in it, or both.

Joe