There may be a relatively contained early-adopter opportunity to try something in this area of IPv4 options – Deterministic Networking (DetNet – detnet WG) is using 6-tuple match (2 x IP address, L4 protocol [e.g., TCP, UDP], 2 x port, DSCP) to pick off traffic flows that go through the DetNet data plane in routers instead of the default data plane. DetNet appears to nee IOAM in order to ensure that OAM traffic goes through the DetNet data plane – if the DetNet data plane is down, having an OAM continuity check report that the default data plane is functional turns out to be worse than useless, as it has the potential to mislead the operator about where and what the problem is.
Thanks, --David From: Int-area <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Joe Touch Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 11:17 AM To: Tom Herbert Cc: int-area Subject: Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ipv4-hbh-destopt-00.txt [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi, Tom, On Sep 26, 2019, at 7:54 AM, Tom Herbert <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Joe, Your arguments seems to be more against use of Hop-by-Hop options in general. My concern is that you are trying to copy what appears to be a failed approach. I have no position on whether it *should* fail, but more rather that it *has*. I.e., I’m following your logic: - IPv4 options are not deployed and so are not useful I agree completely. But isn’t the same true for IPv6 HBH? If not, can you provide *an example of a widely deployed HBH option in current use*? Last time I checked, Hop-by-Hop options have not been deprecated by IETF. Neither do I see why it's incumbent on us to show they're widely deployed as a prerequisite to developing them. Additionally, what is the evidence that they're not widely deployed-- for instance do we _know_ for a fact that they're not deployed in some large private network? (IOAM is targeted to closed networks). For that matter if we only are allowed to work with protocols that are widely deployed, then how could we ever work on new protocols? E.g. why should we develop new UDP options when they currently they have no deployment. Agreed, but your logic leads to the conclusion that you should be using IPv4 options (unless you show that space is a problem) first. If that is a problem, then an IP protocol is sufficient, as it was for IPsec. I see no need for an IPv4 framework to address a problem that doesn’t need that *framework*. Joe
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
