Subject: [v6ops] Focused discussion: draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 11:00:02 -0800

We seem to have been fairly successful getting focused discussion
in January.  I'd like to try this one more time before IETF 95. Could
we all read draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops and comment on it?
Andrew Yourtchenko reviewed it on January 11, and there was a breif
discussion between him, Fernando, and Brian Carpenter. Are there other
opinions out there?

---

From: Sander Steffann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 21:35:32 +0100

Hi,

> discussion between him, Fernando, and Brian Carpenter. Are there other

I discussed the draft with Fernando over Skype. Mostly textual stuff and clarifications feedback. I think it is a very useful draft that documents the current operational effects of extension headers.

Cheers,
Sander

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 22:12:23 -0800

> discussion between him, Fernando, and Brian Carpenter. Are there other

      a Hop-by-Hop Options header will typically go through the slow
forwarding
      path, and be processed by the router's CPU.

Sometimes a slow forwarding path is not an option

e.g. the options are fast path or no path.

in 4.1.2 - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-06
recently experired but as noted any pracactical impelementation of
flowspec for v6 would require the ability to parse far enough to find
the l4 header.

joel

> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>