On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Roland Bless <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Christopher Morrow wrote: >> My feeling is this: >> hop-by-hop processing will happen in slow-path (if you permit it to >> happen at all), you can't build a router today with an asic that'll >> know how to handle options which are created in the future :( > > while the latter is surely true, I don't think that this > argument precludes to implement fast path processing > of at least _some_ HbH options. I think that the current > implemented strategy to simply pass all HbH options > to the slow path CPU is broken. > > I'm not sure whether it is feasible, but couldn't the > Fast Path (ASIC) at least check for: > - known options to be processed in the fast path, e.g., > some CONEX info field
which options? how often would you expect this list to update? routers live in the network for ~7 years or so, in large networks. ASIC updates mean very expensive (equipment, personnel, sla) changes are required. > - known options to be processed in the control plane, > i.e., punt packet to control path (slow path CPU), > e.g., some to intercept packets with a specific > router alert option > - bypassing unknown options (depending on the specified > actions) in the fast-path and hopefully with a consistent decision on which goes where here? I'd hate for (for example) Cisco to turn left while Juniper turns right... this also seems complex. Again, just providing a knob (and accepting that it will happen) that the HBH options may just be ignored in the public network may terminate this discussion completely. -chris -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
