IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] WG Doc? draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 18 March 2016 03:33 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 C381512D7B4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 6K7K4LyhyWJ9 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22f.google.com (mail-pf0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2071A12DF20 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 4so17369101pfd.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fnHVUv6RYPlCvYHvuxwbWvcCgURQ8nhykoEurwjhQZc=; b=bW3JMALdx/brriAbWNyrHrHL9YLUT3zYPr61vO14itW0Y1K4CN1ZlAR2Z0XqXA1lxF sjR4B1pT4iDH1sC8bWwaruA5RKdEEjldS0ZIaVusb2ga7CCB/u9bNj9pkSMIjhu8A/as U+2xIwiskSvCY6DvjCLeNq257MW7PSRXYi7h66XaXqPsdheMYJe3se2MG2gUwZrThB/5 2FZCvlPFB1CN4L6ggEwyWiGB2IRZQOqhbLcz/gPZdgfU2Ndm7dz+aGTSYj/oGseKqxW2 ubXBbugcx2CoX2nqGSNAroicJrjXsixdz1pji38E4OK7KcbOdeBs1wmaDB9BPlM4TkTV OV8g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=fnHVUv6RYPlCvYHvuxwbWvcCgURQ8nhykoEurwjhQZc=; b=HiSLcBDyvDiF8saRicsuVAGhckorLKBtpt5JBqhkCBi697Lix+C/OX/PWIzXEpxpF2 IGXspKmdldfb2W91v4grxikCtKIJK3f2SYbRSjt0PzbS5n36ZXZplLOPFY8/zS/G8blf fPTeM/LHkBQ8LdraSEu74zvTlfxRfifxvw16uEsBmbt+UrMMGlS4dEqlmd3tb2d4b1oz TPBGwVJNh1VEbTQlvuNpJCucvsyCKnUY+kByLmHsUB8Nu+djoMwx2YUaWg3a3mZQZE+u t1ZIPWAF2O95BwR3Hgeu4d3S/4wkRcI8J1bvLiwd92Lb9H6ZPmoeggK4RPGsHIhlbCi/ ELTA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLiCKsjv/swBOAdnXVO1PsidNetsi1O3mXs3x7fGhS2H3Rp5SLvjWO0rkC329/l/g==
X-Received: by 10.66.167.237 with SMTP id zr13mr20420460pab.85.1458272019769; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.1.9.199] ([103.23.18.15]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z68sm16649069pfi.19.2016.03.17.20.33.36 for <v6ops@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <A277BE71-BD70-4AFE-97DA-F224D7DBBCB8@cisco.com> <56E60B0D.6070600@gmail.com> <CALx6S36_Vi4XZfPvCNY42zpbXy9dXeXzwE8KedxYDhne371HHA@mail.gmail.com> <56E6326B.2090303@gmail.com> <CALx6S353ognNHWnjbNSdW5hb_e6Hv3LqLa_r+e9yEW4F=cjH=A@mail.gmail.com> <56E6FC18.1060304@foobar.org> <CALx6S35pcSj_LLnDWJ68KwSYiHeu6FwrXTaR4N2xE6aY7MRO1A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iLbqEvsw0x4dDcA3Zy3SXKUROcQuy5nSynsL9Xi+xrZLg@mail.gmail.com> <566C93D0-62FF-4700-BC05-7F9AF12AF1BD@employees.org> <56E892B8.9030902@foobar.org> <394925FE-FAB1-4FFC-B1CF-4F64CC58F613@employees.org> <56E94275.20700@foobar.org> <3AE1DE20-D735-4262-A3FB-7C01F30BAFA2@employees.org> <56E96F74.7000206@foobar.org> <CALx6S37zP4UvCtBJsvnPN6OmDB0OQDMfRrJNy1XF0t4COStUjQ@mail.gmail.com> <EE17974D-EDA4-4732-B29E-B2B3BC36DB86@employees.org> <56E9A16B.4030605@si6networks.com> <A2634C00-EBF8-48DA-9604-790F5213F536@employees.org> <56EA93C0.1040904@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr0HKZXVA5ZkW21zROohEUHtvnZN4YFOCw5wixHw1GDCKQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <56EB7719.7050903@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:33:45 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0HKZXVA5ZkW21zROohEUHtvnZN4YFOCw5wixHw1GDCKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/dGZdunw7WxTLs_Hk61aZD7ui01U>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] WG Doc? draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 03:33:42 -0000

On 18/03/2016 02:42, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
...
> As regards hashing: traversing the whole length of the extension header
> chain only to provide flow-based hashing is a bad use of processing power.
> (If it's implemented in hardware, it's might also be a bad use of die
> space, enercy, customer money, etc.) Using the flow label is much better.
> So perhaps we should recommend that if hosts emit packets with extension
> headers, they should also randomize the flowlabel.

We did: Proposed Standard RFC 6437 in 2011.

We also recommended that middleboxes should correctly process
extension headers: Proposed Standard RFC 7045 in 2013.
We have forbidden too-long header chains: RFC 7112 in 2014.
We're fixing the requirements for hop-by-hop options in 6man.

I see this draft (and the one on the IESG ballot) as being
operational commentaries on the consequences of those RFCs
being ignored.

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email