Processing of the Hop-by-Hop Options Header
draft-peng-v6ops-hbh-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Shuping Peng  , Zhenbin Li  , Chongfeng Xie  , Zhuangzhuang Qin 
Last updated 2020-10-24
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                            S. Peng
Internet-Draft                                                     Z. Li
Intended status: Informational                       Huawei Technologies
Expires: April 27, 2021                                           C. Xie
                                                           China Telecom
                                                                  Z. Qin
                                                            China Unicom
                                                        October 24, 2020

              Processing of the Hop-by-Hop Options Header
                        draft-peng-v6ops-hbh-01

Abstract

   This document describes the processing of the Hop-by-Hop Options
   Header in today's routers in the aspects of standards specification,
   common implementations, and default operations.  This document
   outlines the reasons why the Hop-by-Hop Options Header is rarely
   utilized in current networks.  In addition, this document describes
   why the HBH could be used as a powerful mechanism allowing deployment
   and operations of new services requiring a more optimized way to
   leverage network resources of an infrastructure.  The Hop-by-Hop
   Options Header is taken into consideration as a valuable container
   for carrying the information facilitating the introduction of new
   services.  The desired, and proposed, processing behavior of the HBH
   and the migration strategies towards it are also suggested.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

Peng, et al.             Expires April 27, 2021                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           Processing HBH Opt Hdr             October 2020

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Modern Router Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Specification of RFC8200  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Common Implementations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Historical Reasons  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Consequences  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Operators' typical processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  New Services  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  The desired processing behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Migration strategies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   11. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   Due to the historical reasons, such as incapable ASICs, limited IPv6
   deployments and few service requirements, the current common
   implementation on the processing of the Hop-by-Hop Options header
   (HBH) is that the node will directly send the IPv6 packets with the
   Hop-by-Hop Options header to the slow path (i.e. the control plane)
   of the node.  The option type of each option carried within the Hop-
Show full document text