On 22-Mar-24 03:53, Robinson, Herbie wrote:
I would say that, in theory, that’s not a show stopper, but in practice it is a lot of work to implement – enough to suggest that you wouldn’t get enough implementations to make it useable.
I'll say it because nobody else has (recently). Why should the IETF spend effort on upgrading IPv4 capabilities at this point? Brian
*From:* Int-area <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *[email protected] *Sent:* Thursday, March 21, 2024 10:46 AM *To:* Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> *Cc:* int-area <[email protected]> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ipv4-eh-03.txt *[**EXTERNAL SENDER**: This email originated from outside of Stratus Technologies. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.]*** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Mar 20, 2024, at 9:35 PM, Toerless Eckert <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 09:20:24PM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote: In other words, Destination Option Headers do not have fundamentally distinct processing requirements on the destination host examining it than any other possible protocol header (e.g.: UDP, TCP), or at least we could not find such a description for any such guiding rules or treatment differences in RFC8200. Yes, that's mostly how all the IP protocols are implemented. Processing of an encapsulated protocol isn't completely independent, for instance the pseudo header for the TCP and UDP checksum is different for IPv4 and IPv6. Right. But it seems unrelated to whether or not a header is an extension header, TCP and UDP not being extension headers for example. I haven’t seen it mentioned yet (apologies if so), but there is a big difference between extension headers and encapsulated protocols. Extension headers - no matter how many - can each refer back to the base header. Same for the first encapsulated protocol. E.g.: IP1 IP2 IP3 TCP….TCP uses a pseudo header based on IP3 But: IPv6a EHb EHc TCP…TCP uses a pseudo header based on IPv6a; each of the EH’s can also refer back to IPv6a I see NO way to do this with any mechanism for IPv4 except options (whose space is limited). There’s no way to redefine protocol processing to ensure that information can be “Carried” forward across EHs. This seems like a show-stopper; has it been addressed? Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
