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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi Geoff,

We can do two things in the IETF: document reality, and try to make the
best standards and guidelines we can. Unfortunately these two goals are
sometimes contradictory.

On the "document reality" side, thanks for your pointer. And that sort
of factual input should probably be used in v6ops work starting with
"Operational Implications...". But I believe that at the same time we
need to do as much as we can on the standards & guidelines side of the
house to make reality better in the long term. That was rather the point
of RFC7098.

Middleboxes that gratuitously change the flow label are faulty. That
needs to be spelled out again, apparently.

Regards
   Brian

On 29-Jul-20 08:03, Geoff Huston wrote:
>> On 29 Jul 2020, at 5:18 am, Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> They have disputable conclusion: "Avoid using the flow label as a hash component".
>>
>> This guidance could just as easily be "Avoid fragmentation", "Avoid
>> using any protocols other than UDP or TCP", "Avoid using extension
>> headers", "Avoid ICMP", "Avoid using encapsulation", "Avoid using
>> encryptions" as any of these can break some meddling device somewhere
>> such that packet delivery becomes unreliable on the Internet. More
>> generally, the guidance could simply be "Avoid doing anything that
>> disrupts the status quo”!
> 
> 
> It all depends on the motivation Tom. If the motivation is “maximise the
> likelihood of successful packet delivery on transit paths across the public 
> Internet", then yes, all these are relevant considerations. And your point
> is?
> 
> Geoff
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>