On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 7:45 AM Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 1, 2019, at 1:45 AM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Expanding from Bob's preference: IMHO it would make sense to explore what > > we can solve with extension headers (HbyH and DO) - rather than argue the > > past or judge from the past. Hardware is changing - and what used to be the > > case, does not necessarily hold true in present or the future. > > Sure, but... > > > Back in the hackathon at IETF 100 we even showcased a hardware > > implementation of what is ultimately an extension header use-case, see e.g. > > https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/11/10/1195153/0/en/Barefoot-Networks-Collaborates-with-Cisco-to-Demonstrate-In-situ-Operations-Administration-and-Management-IOAM-Showcasing-the-Power-of-Programmable-Forwarding-Plane-Technology.html > > > > Providing a holistic implementation in hardware for recent efforts that > > leverage EH (like PDM, IOAM, etc.) would become easier if we had a protocol > > independent approach to EH. This would mean that e.g. for IOAM we could use > > almost the same implementation for v4 as we'd do for v6 > > I think you’re missing Bob’s point, which I’ll expand on: > > a) you can already proceed for IPv6; show us it has been deployed > > b) as you note, IPv4 != IPv6. “almost the same” has a lot of variants... > > > - protocol specific efforts would be limited, and as a nice side effect > > we'd avoid more complex encapsulations for IOAM in IPv4 which we'd need to > > use otherwise (e.g. one proposal is to use GRE - which doesn't make things > > easier). > > I can see how GRE might be more complex, but not why a HBH code point is > needed (e.g., vs. just an IPv4 protocol code point and using the IPsec > approach).
Joe, Taking "the IPsec approach" would be creating a new extension header and code point that is unique to IPv4-- I don't see how that's any better than just using an existing EH defined for IPv6. IP protocol 0 is already reserved in the IPv4 protocol number space, it's just a matter of specifying how it can be used with IPv4. Tom > > Joe > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
