IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Fri, 31 July 2020 12:22 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 8F8C43A116E; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 05:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 5CvbCG1t-e5t; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 05:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E7F13A10F7; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 05:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:1f7:7c31:7d03:b423:b91b] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:1f7:7c31:7d03:b423:b91b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C1BA7280B5A; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 12:22:50 +0000 (UTC)
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops@ietf.org" <draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops@ietf.org>
References: <b380408712364589a45ab9f39ab6f764@huawei.com> <CALx6S35rkA5nVPm6C6MToUdHKFmcAabGfMN9prTiUfWr+GKwCA@mail.gmail.com> <6439ceb9d73b435d950e73a7a2d68fc7@huawei.com> <CALx6S37ih8VabN2PHvQ3ELDvV2DoiUqnd28LRxr4ofj6zUq3Jw@mail.gmail.com> <947a50398cbb4bbcad85462a69d7dd45@huawei.com> <CALx6S35FX-SNoNFhd2JXFio9B0vGVyXGkeob=7x+dn6u4qOaVw@mail.gmail.com> <42B3046E-6157-4460-A10B-F13E299340B6@apnic.net> <4720fdaa-71b6-4816-e800-938c01a30abb@gmail.com> <CALx6S342x_u4pLD5DpYKh=_u1e0dLujgrmoxfKpeuE5SbZerEA@mail.gmail.com> <d6cc0f77-151f-060f-54f0-2987597ff11f@si6networks.com> <32d99263-7176-3188-b9d2-72a67c6ed3d6@gmail.com> <d2beec78-4d21-1583-db30-0753dcceebe1@si6networks.com> <CALx6S35PTX_0uUS-11f8C9rxuuMEC+gq9H_ERjnLRmD2u6nXww@mail.gmail.com> <f978ac40-c40d-900e-28d0-9f052392b224@foobar.org> <CALx6S34kzwTObBvEh8oYK1V5W+Fe5QKwGgtOGikvh5EPvo+NSg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <9f8d77c4-f2b5-2ba3-98d5-4c21770a1bd7@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 08:55:18 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S34kzwTObBvEh8oYK1V5W+Fe5QKwGgtOGikvh5EPvo+NSg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/zMIRXgs0sxd3aRdG7yV1KgJ-Ur4>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - Load Balancer
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 31 Jul 2020 12:23:00 -0000

Hi, Tom,

On 29/7/20 18:41, Tom Herbert wrote:
[....]
>>
> 
> It's not really the same thing. There has been a lot of work in PMTU
> discovery mechanisms, but not a lot of work in
> Path-Parsing-Buffer-Size discovery.

FWIW, some rough measurements I've performed indicate that the drop rate 
is proportional to the EH length. At the time, I did  measurements with 
lengths such as 8, 256, and 512.

If the group thinks more finer-grained data would be of help, then I 
could run these measurements again, in more detail, and report back to 
the working group.

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email