On Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 11:44 AM Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin=
[email protected]> wrote:

> Section 8 of "Identification Extension for the Internet Protocol" proposes
> a new IPv6 extension
> header called the "Extended Fragment Header" that includes a 96-bit (12
> octet) Identification
> field making the total length of the extension header 128-bits (16 octets):
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-intarea-ipid-ext/
>
> However, the only reason for the 96-bit Identification field was to make
> the whole
> extension header be an integral multiple of 8 octets - what would be
> preferable would
> be to have only a 64-bit Identification field and limit the Extended
> Fragment Header as
> a whole to 96-bits (12 octets) which is not a multiple of 8 octets.
>
> The IPv6 Fragment Header is unique among IPv6 extension headers in that it
> does not
> include a "Hdr Ext Len" field that tells the length of the header in
> 8-octet units. This
> means that implementations must be able to determine its length (8 octets)
> solely
> based on the IP protocol number "44". The proposed IPv6 Extended Fragment
> Header
> would likewise not include a "Hdr Ext Len" field and would use a new IP
> protocol
> number to be assigned by IANA, with the IP protocol number determining the
> extension header length.
>
> RFC8200, Section 4 states:
>
>    "Each extension header is an integer multiple of 8 octets long, in
>    order to retain 8-octet alignment for subsequent headers."
>
> But, can an exception be made for the proposed IPv6 Extended Fragment
> Header
> with a 64-bit Identification field, making the total extension header
> length 12 octets
> which is not a integer multiple of 8?
>

Hi Fred,

The text you quoted says why we can't do that. If a frag header length is
not a multiple of eight bytes then the alignment requirements for all
subsequent extension headers and the payload are not met. This potentially
breaks a receiving implementation that relies on alignment.

Tom


> Thank you - Fred
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to