IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Mon, 27 July 2020 11:03 UTC

Return-Path: <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
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 4FC713A18AB; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 04:03:50 -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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 G5nhI8zvgaeD; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 04:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 430DC3A18A8; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 04:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml728-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id C5749EE009058043554D; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 12:03:45 +0100 (IST)
Received: from msceml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.159) by lhreml728-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.79) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 12:03:45 +0100
Received: from msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.161) by msceml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.159) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 14:03:44 +0300
Received: from msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.219.141.161]) by msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.219.141.161]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 14:03:44 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops@ietf.org" <draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - OAM
Thread-Index: AdZj+M7rylVBEZ48S5ifVJiJzMekB///0ZqA///Ln6CAAD0bgP//weaA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 11:03:44 +0000
Message-ID: <f6539f3a381e4dffa297cd29361f6cd6@huawei.com>
References: <ab6cb83e1ed74a63a494c83f63c9d371@huawei.com> <556c9c3a-b8e5-eb3d-cecb-dfe66cf98ac2@si6networks.com> <16647bab75e0466794ab711b960770fd@huawei.com> <2a4e0970-f2f2-710b-6081-fbf7e9085285@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <2a4e0970-f2f2-710b-6081-fbf7e9085285@si6networks.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.200.156]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/UfCiL-lgG7J5twDY3b4tBNJZFgk>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - OAM
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 11:03:51 -0000

Hi Fernando,
Then may be OAM is out of the scope (for this draft).
It is definitely not the reason for a drop itself,
But It may be needed to investigate drop reason.
If "drop reason" is not needed to be investigated ...
Eduard
-----Original Message-----
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fgont@si6networks.com] 
Sent: 27 июля 2020 г. 13:17
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>; IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - OAM

On 27/7/20 06:56, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
> May be me misunderstood the point of the draft in 1st place.
> I do see it as a warning list for potential issues that admin should research a little deeper before he/she would enable some EHs.

Nope.

What this document tries to do is to shed some light into why packets with EHs are largely dropped in the public Internet.

And essentially it notes that in many cases operators don't have many other options.

RFC7872 (as well as other studies referenced in our draft) have provided data about the extent to which packets with EHs are dropped in the public Internet.

And this document elaborates on the operational reality that many operators have not much of a choce than resorting to dropping them.

Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email