On 6/10/13 9:35 PM, Ray Hunter wrote:
Christopher Morrow <mailto:[email protected]>
10 June 2013 20:59
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Ray Hunter <[email protected]> wrote:
Christopher Morrow <mailto:[email protected]>
10 June 2013 17:22
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Nalini Elkins
Some of the discussion already had talks about ordering and optimum
method to find X in the header chain. What happens in these situations
when someone sends 'lots' of packets with 'bad ordering' of the header
bits? Will the devices in the path behave 'well'? or will I get
degraded forwarding performance because of bad ordering? or will the
packets be dropped? or ?
it's worth thinking about what can go wrong with this requirement to
order EH bits in certain ways.
-chris
I purposefully left that particular can unopened, because I consider it
unlikely that we will obtain rough consensus on it.
:)
IMHO it's better to have an informational RFC that says "if you obey
these simple formatting rules, your packet is likely to be transported
(fast)" than nothing at all.
right, but you're also asking HW manufacturers to optomize on a
certain ordering (sort of), that's going to lead to: 1, 2, 3 ordering
works great!
Yes. Better than today.
but: 3,2,1 == slow-path :(
or COULD lead to that.
Same as today. So they'll continue to make their own decision on whether
to deploy slow path or drop.
Understand that there is no slow path in high capacity devices.
There is fast path or no path.
If slow path exists it becomes a bottleneck or a dos target.
I just searched draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-12 for requirements on
extension headers. Nada AFAICS.
I also just tested my own home CPE for outbound transmission of
extension headers (with and without firewall configured):
HBH EH: tick
Destination Options EH: tick
Fragment EH: looks like they're always dropped
neat... how about proto-59? (noext-headers)? :)
Untested (no test source yet)
regards,
RayH
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
