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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Eduard,

On 27/7/20 06:30, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
> The more messages I have sent to you - the less confident I am in the next one comment, but anyway.

?


> 1. All these new staff would need more OAM tools. May be such simple as "ping for SRv6", may be much more complicated (is anything exist to ping BIER data plane?). Network Admin (or Planning department) should research what is available for the tools that they have decided to activate.
> 2. Some EH are not practical without proper OSS tools (example: iFit)
> IMHO: it could be one additional section X (numbering in the root).
> It is probably very relevant, because draft has "v6ops" in the middle of the name.

I'm not sure what's the point you are raising.

Essentially, operators employ devices that need to access L-4 
information for doing a bunch of things (EMCP, enforcing ACLs, etc.). 
The structure of IPv6 packets makes accessing such information 
challenging. In some cases, devices are unable to access such 
information. In other cases, they might be able to do so provided the 
packet goes through the slow-path (all this depending, to some extent, 
on the EH-chain length). Ultimately, in many of these cases (if not 
all), operators have no other option than to drop the offending packets.

This is a general issue of IPv6 EHs.

Yes, depending on the tools you might need support for this or that. BUt 
how does that change the discussion we're having in the document?

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