Re: [v6ops] draft-elkins-6man-ipv6-diagnostic-header (Was: draft minutes ietf 81, 3 meetings...)

[[e-mail]]

Shane,


> 
> Have you taken a look at flow-spec for IPv4:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5575
> ... and, flow-spec for IPv6:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-00
> (Both the RFC and I-D are within the IDR WG).
> 
> In summary, using flow-spec one can define an ACL that then
> get distributed across all routers within an ASN, via BGP,
> that can then be used to count matching packets, log packet
> header information, etc.  It's up to the operator to
> decide what ACL to be applied and what 'action' (logging,
> counting, etc.) to be taken for packets that match a given
> 'rule'.  
> 
> From where I'm sitting, this seems like it might already
> solve the problem you're having, without having to invent a
> wholly new IPv6 Destination Header Option.  So, I would
> like to know if you have taken a look at flow-spec and, if
> so, why it was ruled out?

Certainly an interesting set of RFCs but a few questions I would have:

1.  What if BGP is not being used?

2.  What about matching packets at non-router devices (that is, hosts)

3.  I believe what we need in diagnostics is the entire packet not just a logging that such a packet existed.  For example, the problem we are looking for may be in the body of the protocol data.  Ex. a problem with FTP.  So, we would need the entire packet as captured by a packet analyzer rather than a log that says 'a packet from dest x to source y was sent'.  I do not imagine that the log is going to keep the entire packet.  Am I missing something?


> 
> -shane