Hi, David,
Although I appreciate new interest in trying this experiment, that’s not what I
was asking.
My understanding of the logic is as follows:
- IPv4 in-header options aren’t supported
- so let’s make a version of IPv4 options inspired by IPv6 HBH options
That logic only works if IPv6 HBH options were a success. I’m asking for anyone
to point to a success case.
If there are no widely deployed IPv6 HBH options at this point (given they’ve
been available for two decades), this is not a useful approach to mimic in IPv4.
Joe
> On Sep 27, 2019, at 7:11 AM, Black, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> There may be a relatively contained early-adopter opportunity to try
> something in this area of IPv4 options – Deterministic Networking (DetNet –
> detnet WG) is using 6-tuple match (2 x IP address, L4 protocol [e.g., TCP,
> UDP], 2 x port, DSCP) to pick off traffic flows that go through the DetNet
> data plane in routers instead of the default data plane. DetNet appears to
> nee IOAM in order to ensure that OAM traffic goes through the DetNet data
> plane – if the DetNet data plane is down, having an OAM continuity check
> report that the default data plane is functional turns out to be worse than
> useless, as it has the potential to mislead the operator about where and what
> the problem is.
>
> Thanks, --David
>
> From: Int-area <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> On Behalf Of Joe Touch
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 11:17 AM
> To: Tom Herbert
> Cc: int-area
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for
> draft-herbert-ipv4-hbh-destopt-00.txt
>
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>
> Hi, Tom,
>
>
> On Sep 26, 2019, at 7:54 AM, Tom Herbert <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> Your arguments seems to be more against use of Hop-by-Hop options in general.
>
> My concern is that you are trying to copy what appears to be a failed
> approach. I have no position on whether it *should* fail, but more rather
> that it *has*.
>
> I.e., I’m following your logic:
> - IPv4 options are not deployed and so are not useful
>
> I agree completely. But isn’t the same true for IPv6 HBH?
>
> If not, can you provide *an example of a widely deployed HBH option in
> current use*?
>
>
> Last time I checked, Hop-by-Hop options have not been deprecated by IETF.
> Neither do I see why it's incumbent on us to show they're widely deployed as
> a prerequisite to developing them. Additionally, what is the evidence that
> they're not widely deployed-- for instance do we _know_ for a fact that
> they're not deployed in some large private network? (IOAM is targeted to
> closed networks). For that matter if we only are allowed to work with
> protocols that are widely deployed, then how could we ever work on new
> protocols? E.g. why should we develop new UDP options when they currently
> they have no deployment.
>
> Agreed, but your logic leads to the conclusion that you should be using IPv4
> options (unless you show that space is a problem) first.
>
> If that is a problem, then an IP protocol is sufficient, as it was for IPsec.
>
> I see no need for an IPv4 framework to address a problem that doesn’t need
> that *framework*.
>
> Joe
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
