On 9/9/19 14:07, Alexandre Petrescu wrote: > > Le 07/09/2019 à 13:32, Robert Raszuk a écrit : >> /* Adjusting the subject to reflect the topic */ >> >> Ok ... I looked at the new wave of mails in wrong order :) >> >> I like this proposal: >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-herbert-ipv4-eh-01 >> >> And have absolutely nothing against progressing it further - it looks >> on the surface to be more efficient then sr-mpls over IP - but how >> many bits are we saving needs to be calculated to state if cost of >> introducing new encoding justifies the additional control plane, >> protocol and platform efforts >> >> In fact if we would get to the consensus of using SRH with SID & BSID >> to be of fixed 20 bits it can reuse a lot of mechanism build for >> sr-mpls in any commercial router. >> >> It is just a bit amazing that insertion of EHs into IPv4 would be >> less problematic that in the case of IPv6 :) Maybe due to allowed >> fragmentation. >> >> As to the host dropping packets due to unknown protocol - let's >> observe that SR domain would clean such EH before passing packets >> further. >> >> Many thx, >> R. > > When I learned IPv4 existed it was already very late to suggest anything > to it. I learned that many things were designed into it at its origin, > but few things got actually deployed. > > The example of loose source route, and strict source route, was given as > an example that people tried to do but it never worked at scale. So it > got filtered and disappeared.
SSR and LSR have well known security implications -- hence the filtering. SImilarly, RHT0 was obsoleted for the same reason. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
