On Oct 8, 2013, at 12:45 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joel, > > Would this help? > > OLD > Today, packets are often forwarded not only by straightforward IP > routers, but also by a variety of intermediate nodes, often referred > to as middleboxes, such as firewalls, load balancers, or packet > classifiers. > > NEW > Today, IPv6 packets are often forwarded not only on the basis of their > first 40 bytes by straightforward IP routing. Some routers, and a > variety of intermediate nodes often referred to as middleboxes, such > as firewalls, load balancers, or packet classifiers, inspect other > parts of each packet. > I find that more palatable yeah. > (and possibly some changes for consistency later in the document) > > Brian > > > On 09/10/2013 08:22, joel jaeggli wrote: >> On Oct 8, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 08/10/2013 20:19, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >>> ... >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> DISCUSS: >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> This is a dicuss because I'd like to see if I'm in the rough in this. >>>> >>>> Devices generally considered to be IP routers in fact are able to or find >>>> it necessary to forward on the basis of headers other than the IP header >>>> e.g. the transport header. By the definition applied in the problem >>>> statement all ipv6 capable routers in the internet that I'm aware are or >>>> are capable of being middleboxes. >>> IMHO, yes, if a box is taking a forwarding decision on the basis of anything >>> other than the first 40 bytes of an IPv6 header, then it's a middlebox >>> as far as this draft is concerned. Any such box is not a "straightforward IP >>> router". >>> >>> In the process of working on the draft I have actually corresponded briefly >>> with Steve Deering, and I'm pretty sure he would agree with me (with >>> added expletives). >> >> Right, so there are no IP routers on the internet today and you should >> update the document accordingly because as it stands now it seems to presume >> their existence. >> >>>> I would welcome the existence proof of an ipv6 capable router which is >>>> not capable of being a middlebox by the definition applied in the problem >>>> statement. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure that's a glaring flaw in the document but it certainly is >>>> with our vocabulary around taxonomy if true. >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> COMMENT: >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> If you need to find the transport header due to configured policy and you >>>> can't due to being unable to parse the extensions chain your configured >>>> action will be to drop. That perhaps weasels it's way through section 2.1 >>>> requirements but it's still quite ugly. >>> Yes, and it's the reason that the Internet is mainly opaque to IPv6 >>> extensions headers today. >>> >>> Brian >>> >> >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
