Soheil, > That paper only shows that "in their experiments they saw that half of the > routers in INTERNET drop the packets with IPv4-Option", but measurements > targeted for the path of packets in internet is just a use case. > > Think about different third party NFV containers running on our private > datacenter to process the incoming packets (even from internet or where > ever!) and usage of VPP as software switch/router/processing-point under > those containers. > > Now use of IPv4 iOAM to get some local performance measurements in this > private network (which usually gets Ipv4 packets as input) makes sense. So > IMO saying that half of "their" tested routers doesn't support ipv4 options > doesn't seem a good reasoning for not supporting IPV4 option in VPP. > > Ole, > > It's not obsoleted. As Burt mentioned it's still part of the standard. Even > recent ietf drafts are considering this feature. For instance look at > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-04
Lots of features in RFC791 that aren't deployed anymore or deployable. No-one has bothered to go around and clean up the document. > VPP already supports iOAM for IPv6 which is I guess base on the available IOS > solution for IPv6 from Cisco. We were going to add Ipv4 iAOM functionality to > VPP; however, from what you're saying I feel there won't be support for > accepting IPv4-Options in VPP in future, and it seems that there is no solid > reasoning behind that decision, am I right? I'm the co-chair of the 6MAN working group in the IETF. We have spent about a year and a few thousand email messages discussing the merits of header injection for IPv6. Which I presume you are proposing here? The consensus is that neither for IPv4 nor IPv6 is there any support in text for changing a packets size in flight (aka inserting options / headers). Inserting at source is not a problem of course. But removing it at exit is. You can of course propose to do something new with IPv4. Just note that with IPv4 exhaustion the IPv4 address space has bled into the transport layer. The IPv4 header is now essentially a fixed header of 28 bytes. Address and TCP/UDP ports. You can do this many different ways. Encapsulation for example. This sounds like something would require some level of standardisation. Have you written your ideas up? Cheers, Ole
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ vpp-dev mailing list vpp-dev@lists.fd.io https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
