Joel, At the risk of turning this into the IETF list.
> The issue is that many existing routers will drop, or if you are very lucky > slow-path, and IP4 packets with options. > Yes, the specification allows such options. The IPv4 specs even allow adding > and removing such options. > However, because of issues like ECMP / LAG support, such options have been > observed not to work. We have been over this a few times with regards to the IPv6 header insertion proposals. I have seen no support for the statement "the IPv4 specs even allow adding and removing such options", if by that you mean adding or removing options by intermediate nodes along the packets forwarding path. What the IPv4 RFCs allow is changing options en-route (so does IPv6), but that requires the host to insert the scratch space, i.e. the option at source. Happy to be proven wrong, but Bob and I thought we went over the "history" here quite a few times... > Thus, while there may be some cases where they can be made useful, it > requires great care in many other aspects of the network. > Depending upon what measurements are needed, there are other ways to get the > needed information even in data centers. Best regards, 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
