[lacnog] Fwd: Comments on Nalini et al's IPv6 EHs presentation

[Fernando Gont]

FYI.

Este finde hubo una presentacion en la sesion de IEPG (*) sobre la 
usabilidad de los encabezados de extension IPv6 (IPv6 EHs) en la 
Internet publica.

(*)
+ Slides: https://iepg.org/2022-07-24-ietf114/index.html
+ Video: 
https://play.conf.meetecho.com/Playout/?session=IETF114-IEPG-20220724-1400

Aqui van mis comentarios....


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Comments on Nalini et al's IPv6 EHs presentation
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2022 00:25:33 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fgont en si6networks.com>
To: iepg en lists.isc.org
CC: nalini.elkins en insidethestack.com

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 en si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492