[ipv6-wg] [v6ops] Why operators filter IPv6 packets with extension headers?
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Sep 1 22:43:50 CEST 2015
On 01/09/2015 22:06, Fernando Gont wrote: > Hi, Eric, > > Thanks so much for the timely feedback! Please find some comments inline > (more in a subsequent email)... > > > On 09/01/2015 05:42 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: ... >> - the processing of HbH would kill the Internet of course (at least with >> most routers), should HbH be separately called? > > I think that'd be sensible. -- and seem to recall that there was some > I-D (RFC?) focusing on HbH? (or was it on router alert option?) You're probably thinking of draft-baker-6man-hbh-header-handling, but there's a slight conflict between that and RFC 7045, which made a normative change to HbH by downgrading them to SHOULD: The IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options header SHOULD be processed by intermediate forwarding nodes as described in [RFC2460]. However, it is to be expected that high-performance routers will either ignore it or assign packets containing it to a slow processing path. Designers planning to use a hop-by-hop option need to be aware of this likely behaviour. Also of course the next version of 2460bis will revisit this topic. Brian
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]