Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - Load Balancer
Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 29 July 2020 06:13 UTC
Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 B37753A1005; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 23:13:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 QcL51014RtCN; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 23:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 884623A0FF9; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 23:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:1f7:8ca5:7f63:e5ff:a34] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:1f7:8ca5:7f63:e5ff:a34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95772280974; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 06:13:52 +0000 (UTC)
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops@ietf.org" <draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops@ietf.org>
References: <b380408712364589a45ab9f39ab6f764@huawei.com> <CALx6S35rkA5nVPm6C6MToUdHKFmcAabGfMN9prTiUfWr+GKwCA@mail.gmail.com> <6439ceb9d73b435d950e73a7a2d68fc7@huawei.com> <CALx6S37ih8VabN2PHvQ3ELDvV2DoiUqnd28LRxr4ofj6zUq3Jw@mail.gmail.com> <947a50398cbb4bbcad85462a69d7dd45@huawei.com> <CALx6S35FX-SNoNFhd2JXFio9B0vGVyXGkeob=7x+dn6u4qOaVw@mail.gmail.com> <42B3046E-6157-4460-A10B-F13E299340B6@apnic.net> <4720fdaa-71b6-4816-e800-938c01a30abb@gmail.com> <CALx6S342x_u4pLD5DpYKh=_u1e0dLujgrmoxfKpeuE5SbZerEA@mail.gmail.com> <d6cc0f77-151f-060f-54f0-2987597ff11f@si6networks.com> <32d99263-7176-3188-b9d2-72a67c6ed3d6@gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <d2beec78-4d21-1583-db30-0753dcceebe1@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 01:59:35 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <32d99263-7176-3188-b9d2-72a67c6ed3d6@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Y3q2lU0la6XRyuUHjIpxfMKvnIs>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - Load Balancer
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: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 06:14:01 -0000
Hi, Brian, On 29/7/20 01:03, Brian E Carpenter wrote: [....] >> It seems evident that the IPv6 packet structure makes a cost-effective >> implementation rather difficult. Since engineering does not only have to >> do with science, but also with economics, it follows that: >> >> * Folks (group #1) will not be willing to pay for features that their >> clients do not explicitly require. >> >> * Vendors (group #2) will not spend cycles on something which will not >> get them money in return. >> >> * Other set of folks (group #3) will not actively try to leverage >> features with a high failure rate, since they would also need to >> implement workarounds -- and if the workarounds already solve the >> problem, with a much higher success rate, there's not much of a point in >> spending time (and ultimately $$) in the feature that usually fails. >> >> * Users (group #4) use whatever solves their problem. >> >> >> We may be unhappy with the above fact. But unless we're willing to pay >> the bill :-), I'm not sure to what extent embarking into a Crusade would >> solve the "problem". > > Not what I meant, really. FWIW, I do agree with you. My comment was a response to Tom where he was objecting to folks that, for one reason or another, happen to drop packets. (in this particular case the advice given by JOel in his presentation) And what I meant is that rather that being mad about them, one should try to find the reasons for which they are resorting to that (which is what this document is meant to), and then figure out and do what we can from a protocol engineering perspective. > All we can do here is write documents. So if > the consensus is still what the standards track documents say, including > Node Requirements, we have actually done our duty. That's in part correct. However, for cases where standards track documents implementation become unfeasible or cost-ineffective, one may need to consider being more flexible and reconsider the spec. A good example was the IPsec requirement in an early revision of Node Reqs: it was words on paper that would never be complied with - so the spec was changed to reflect that. I'm not necessarily saying that this is the case here, but rather that that's an option that should be on the table. > And we have, in RFC8504: > "All nodes SHOULD support the setting and use of the IPv6 Flow Label > field as defined in the IPv6 Flow Label specification [RFC6437]. > Forwarding nodes such as routers and load distributors MUST NOT > depend only on Flow Label values being uniformly distributed. I retrospective, if it cannot depend on the FL (which I agree), is there much of a point in using it? Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
- [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets … Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Brian Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Geoff Huston
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Geoff Huston
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Geoff Huston
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Tim Chown
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Nick Hilliard
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Geoff Huston
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Nick Hilliard
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Tom Herbert
- Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Pack… Fernando Gont