Comments on Nalini et al's IPv6 EHs presentation
Fernando Gont
fgont at si6networks.com
Tue Jul 26 03:25:33 UTC 2022
Hi, folks,
I couldn't make it to the IEPG session (neither in person nor remotely),
but did watch the videos off-line. Nice to see there's still interest on
this topic!
Some comments:
* Nalini et al's measurements seem to be from one specific point in the
network topology, to a very small subset of destination endpoints.
If anything, the results may indicate that EHs do work on some
specific paths (we knew they do), but certainly is not an indication
that they are usable on the public Internet -- i.e., think of
statistical significance of the measurements, so to speak.
* There doesn't seem to be any practical difference between the probe
packets that we (RFC7872) sent, vs the ones in this experiment: at
the end of the day, the network doesn't really care whether the
packets were crafted by the kernel, or by pcap_inject().
* In RFC7872, we did measure whether EHs are dropped at transit ASes vs.
the destination AS -- and there's a bit of both. (the probable reasons
are analyzed in RFC9098)
* Not sure why Nalini refers to other measurements employing "fake
data"/crafted packets. At the end of the day, From the pov of the
network, PDM option looks probably like an unsupported option anyway.
Whereas, on the other hand, we (RFC7872) employed PadN, which is way
more likely t be supported than PDM.
* You don't really care about the DNS names of the path, but rather
about their corresponding ASN.
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont at si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
More information about the Iepg
mailing list