Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - implications from new development for EHs

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hello, Joe,

On 29/7/20 17:16, Joseph Touch wrote:
[...]
>>> If we are merely documenting what happens to be implemented, we cease to be a standards body and become merely reporters.
>>
>> If we avoid any introspection or consideration of operational reality, the cease to be a relevant standards body and become an ivory tower.\
> 
> That’s why I said “merely”. Doing both and appreciating the balance is fine - the point is that “what is implemented/able TODAY” is NOT the only consideration.

FWIW, I don't think we should limit ourselves to documenting the 
problem.Indeed, documenting the problem can certainly be a starting 
point to consider possible ways to mitigate it.

For a long time, the status quo was assuming that EHs work. More 
recently, thanks to a number of efforts (Geoff's measurements, what we 
did in RFC7872, and others), there has been increased awareness about 
the packet drops.

I would expect that a common understanding that there are underlying 
issues that lead to the packet drops (and it's not just folks playing 
with "firewall" rules at random) can serve as a starting point to 
consider what can be done to make things better, closing the gap (to the 
extent that is possible) between what the IETF says IPv6 is, and the 
operational reality of it.

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