Re: [v6ops] draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world: clarification text

On 4/21/15 11:20 PM, Mark ZZZ Smith wrote:
> So I'm going to call the emperor naked.

not a transit provider so I'm sitting in the edge that said I have some
exposure to this problem space.

hence

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem/

> What I think you and Gert actually want is for EHs to be completely
> deprecated, so that the TCP and UDP headers are always in the same place
> in the packet, so that hardware can look at them for the purposes of
> dropping them in hardware or as inputs into LB. Is that the case?
> 
> What I'm curious about then is how do you handle DDoSes that are using
> IP fragments, where there are no TCP or UDP headers ports to look at?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop/

> I'm also curious about how you LB packets (either at layer 2 or layer 3)
> that don't have TCP or UDP headers, or aren't IP. I've seen LB become
> completely ineffective at layer 2 because a customer was using MPLS
> between two routers, so no MAC address variation, and no IP addresses
> and no TCP or UDP ports to look at.

as someone who does stateless l3+l4 loadbalancing to servers, if I can't
find the l4 header in an asic based forwarding engine even if a server
can I have problem.

> In fact, given the trouble LAG has caused me in the past 2 years (LAG
> member links that are not current members are supposed to be considered
> by the bridge as normal bridge ports, so if you want to avoid loops
> across the links that are candidate members of the LAG, the IEEE expect
> you to be running STP of some form across them...), I'm a big fan of the
> quote on the last slide of this presentation:
> 
> "IEEE 802.3ad Link Aggregation (LAG) what it is, and what it is not"
> http://www.ieee802.org/3/hssg/public/apr07/frazier_01_0407.pdf
> 
> 
> "LAG is good, but it’s not as good as a fatter pipe."
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
> *To:* v6ops@ietf.org
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 22 April 2015, 2:56
> *Subject:* Re: [v6ops] draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world:
> clarification text
> 
> On 21/04/2015 16:51, Gert Doering wrote:
>> I'm fully at a loss to express my amazement in polite words, so I'm just
>> *out* of this discussion now.
> 
> Fully agreed on this + that this thread needs to end.  The lack of
> operational reality being displayed is pretty severe.
> 
> Nick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 

Re: [v6ops] draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world: clarification text

Attachment: signature.asc