nanog mailing list archives

Re: Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency


From: Frank Habicht <geier () geier ne tz>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 13:52:15 +0300

Hi Owen,

On 1/21/2014 12:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jan 18, 2014, at 23:19 , Frank Habicht <geier () geier ne tz> wrote:
c) v6 with a few extension headers
In this case, it will be at 40+o+n octets into the packet where o is the
number of octets contained in headers prior to the TCP header and n is
defined as in (b) above.

my point tried to be that it can be hard for an ASIC to know 'o'

now program a chip to filter based on this port number...
I think you might want to be more specific. After all, an ARM 9 is a
chip which can easily be programmed to do so (in fact, I can point to
iptables/ip6tables as running code which does this on the ARM 9).

I was thinking about hardware that's forwarding packets "not in software"
some of those boxes probably want to limit tcp ports 179 and 22.

So... I suppose that whether your complaint has merit depends entirely
on whether or not extension headers become more common on IPv6 packets
than options have become on IPv4 packets or not and also on how hard it
is to build fast-path hardware that bypasses extension headers that it
does not care about. Since you only need to parse the first two fields
                                 ^^^^ ?
of each extension header (Next Header Type and Header Length) 
... recursively for all extension headers ...

to know
everything you need to bypass the current header, it shouldn't be too
hard to code that into a chip...
who's done that so far?
Up to what number of EHs or octet-length?

Thanks,
Frank


Current thread: