On 09/06/2013 9:42 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 06/08/2013 11:12 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Or is the complexity of the ASIC implementation of a header chain parser
more heavily influenced by the fact that the header chain is defined as
a linked list of type-length-value items that can be built up in any
number of valid combinations, and so has to be traversed and interpreted
at every individual link?
Traversal is expensive yes.
Yet this has always been claimed as a "feature" -- which I've never
really understood, btw.
IIRC, the claim was that routers didn't need to parse all options to get
the ones it's interested in (as opposed to v4, where the IPv4 might
contain both "destination options" and router options).
However,as soon as one realizes that many boxes need to access the L4
information, this header-chain structure seems rather painful.
I guess having a L4-pointer would have helped quite a lot.
Cheers,
Would it be practical to define a HBH option that has an L4 pointer and
assign a fixed order to it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
