Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - implementation-dependency

[Vasilenko Eduard <[e-mail]>]

>> What would you expect us to cover in such section, other than what we already cover in Section 5.1.1. (Packet Forwarding Engine Constraints)?
It is better to move this story into separate section before security discussion.
Make this story visible.
It is relevant not just to security.
It is expenses - the biggest restriction in business.

-----Original Message-----
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 27 июля 2020 г. 12:39
To: Vasilenko Eduard <[e-mail]>; IPv6 Operations <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - implementation-dependency

Hello, Eduard,

On 27/7/20 06:22, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
> Hi Fernando, You did mention "implementation-dependent" in security 
> section. But majority of people would bypass security section on the 
> 1st pass of reading your draft. Except security people, others would 
> look to functionality 1st, them may be security (may be not:-().
> Hence, you almost ignore "implementation-dependency" in such a way 
> (putting it into security section).

Not sure what you mean...


> I propose to introduce additional
> 5.x, because (IMHO) "implementation-dependency" is the biggest problem 
> in this draft - it is related to money/expenses (especially to replace 
> hardware). It would be even bigger problem on next years with 
> proliferation of SRv6, iFit, iOAM, BIERv6 and other abuses of
> IPv6 headers extensibility. People need to check hardware (and
> software) capability far in advance, or else could be negative 
> surprise.

What would you expect us to cover in such section, other than what we already cover in Section 5.1.1. (Packet Forwarding Engine Constraints)?

Thanks!

Cheers,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492