Network Working Group                                            S. Peng
Internet-Draft                                                     Z. Li
Intended status: Informational                       Huawei Technologies
Expires: 12 April 2022                                            C. Xie
                                                           China Telecom
                                                                  Z. Qin
                                                            China Unicom
                                                               G. Mishra
                                                            Verizon Inc.
                                                          9 October 2021


  Operational Issues with Processing of the Hop-by-Hop Options Header
                        draft-ietf-v6ops-hbh-00

Abstract

   This document describes the processing of the Hop-by-Hop Options
   Header (HBH) 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 how 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 by several network
   operators as a valuable container for carrying the information
   facilitating the introduction of new services.  The purpose of this
   draft is to document the reasons why the HBH is rarely used within
   networks and to define a proper list of requirements aiming to allow
   a better leverage of the HBH capability.

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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174]
   when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

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/.



Peng, et al.              Expires 12 April 2022                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           Processing HBH Opt Hdr             October 2021


   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 12 April 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Modern Router Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Specification of RFC 8200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Common Implementations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  Historical Reasons  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.2.  Consequences  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Operators' Typical Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  New Services  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Migration Strategies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   11. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13











Peng, et al.              Expires 12 April 2022                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           Processing HBH Opt Hdr             October 2021


1.  Introduction

   Due to historical reasons, such as incapable ASICs, limited IPv6
   deployments, and few service requirements, the most common Hop-by-Hop
   Options header (HBH) processing implementation is that the node sends
   the IPv6 packets with the Hop-by-Hop Options header to the control
   plane of the node.  The option type of each option carried within the
   Hop-by-Hop Options header will not even be examined before the packet
   is sent to the control plane.  Very often, such processing behavior
   is the default configuration or, even worse, is the only behavior of
   the ipv6 implementation of the node.

   Such default processing behavior of the Hop-by-Hop Options header
   could result in various unpleasant effects such as a risk of Denial
   of Service (DoS) attack on the router control plane and inconsistent
   packet drops due to rate limiting on the interface between the router
   control plane and forwarding plane, which will impact the normal end-
   to-end IP forwarding of the network services.

   This actually introduced a circular problem:

   -> An implementation problem caused HBH to become a DoS vector.

   -> Because HBH is a DoS vector, network operators deployed ACLs that
   discard packets containing HBH.

   -> Because network operators deployed ACLs that discard packets
   containing HBH, network designers stopped defining new HBH Options.

   -> Because network designers stopped defining new HBH Options, the
   community was not motivated to fix the implementation problem that
   cause HBH to become a DoS vector.

   Driven by the wide deployments of IPv6 and ever-emerging new
   services, the Hop-by-Hop Options Header is taken as a valuable
   container for carrying the information to facilitate these new
   services.

   The purpose of this work is to

   *  Break the endless cycle that resulted in HBH to become a DOS
      vector.

   *  Enable the HBH options header to be utilized in a safe and secure
      way without impacting the management plane.






Peng, et al.              Expires 12 April 2022                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           Processing HBH Opt Hdr             October 2021


   *  Ease the deployments of the new HBH based network services in a
      multi-vendor scenario that can now be deployed without operational
      impact.

   In this draft, the reasons why the HBH is rarely used within networks
   will be documented and a proper list of requirements aiming to allow
   a better leverage of the HBH capability will be defined.

2.  Modern Router Architecture

   Modern router architecture design maintains a strict separation of
   the router control plane and its forwarding plane [RFC6192], as shown
   in Figure 1.  Either the control plane or the forwarding plane is
   composed of both software and hardware, but each plane is responsible
   for different functions.  In this draft, we focus on only the routers
   following the architecture as shown in Figure 1 and those being
   deployed in the network rather than those at home.

                                +----------------+
                                | Router Control |
                                |     Plane      |
                                +------+-+-------+
                                       | |
                                    Interface Z
                                       | |
                                +------+-+-------+
                                |   Forwarding   |
                  Interface X ==[     Plane      ]== Interface Y
                                +----------------+

                        Figure 1. Modern Router Architecture

   The router control plane supports routing and management functions,
   handling packets destined to the device as well as building and
   sending packets originated locally on the device, and also drives the
   programming of the forwarding plane.  The router control plane is
   generally realized in software on general-purpose processors, and its
   hardware is usually not optimized for high-speed packet handling.
   Because of the wide range of functionality, it is more susceptible to
   security vulnerabilities and a more likely a target for a DoS attack.











Peng, et al.              Expires 12 April 2022                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           Processing HBH Opt Hdr             October 2021


   The forwarding plane is typically responsible for receiving a packet
   on an incoming interface, performing a lookup to identify the
   packet's next hop and determine the outgoing interface towards the
   destination, and forwarding the packet out through the appropriate
   outgoing interface.  Typically, forwarding plane functionality is
   realized in high-performance Application Specific Integrated Circuits
   (ASICs) or Network Processors (NPs) that are capable of handling very
   high packet rates.

   The router control plane interfaces with its forwarding plane through
   the Interface Z, as shown in the Figure 1, and the forwarding plane
   connects to other network devices via Interfaces such as X and Y.
   Since the router control plane is vulnerable to the DoS attack,
   usually a traffic filtering mechanism is implemented on Interface Z
   in order to block unwanted traffic.  In order to protect the router
   control plane, a rate-limiting mechanism is always implemented on
   this interface.  However, such rate limiting mechanism will always
   cause inconsistent packet drops, which will impact the normal IP
   forwarding.

   Semiconductor chip technology has advanced significantly in the last
   decade, and as such the widely used network processing and forwarding
   process can now not only forward packets at line speed, but also
   easily support other feature processing such as QoS for DiffServ/
   MPLS, Access Control List (ACL), Firewall, and Deep Packet Inspection
   (DPI).

   A Network Processing Unit (NPU) is a non-ASIC based Integrated
   Circuit (IC) that is programmable through software.  It performs all
   packet header operations between the physical layer interface and the
   switching fabric such as packet parsing and forwarding, modification,
   and forwarding.  Many equipment vendors implement these functions in
   fixed function ASICs rather than using "off-the-shelf" NPUs, because
   of proprietary algorithms.

   Classification Co-processor is a specialized processor that can be
   used to lighten the processing load on an NPU by handling the parsing
   and classification of incoming packets such as IPv6 extended header
   HBH options processing.  This advancement enables network processors
   to do the general process to handle simple control messages for
   traffic management, such as signaling for hardware programming,
   congestion state report, OAM, etc.  Industry trend is for intelligent
   multi-core CPU hardware using modern NPUs for forwarding packets at
   line rate while still being able to perform other complex tasks such
   as HBH forwarding options processing without having to punt to the
   control plane.





Peng, et al.              Expires 12 April 2022                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           Processing HBH Opt Hdr             October 2021


   Many of the packet-processing devices employed in modern switch and
   router designs are fixed-function ASICs to handle proprietary
   functions.  While these devices can be very efficient for the set of
   functions they are designed for, they can be very inflexible.  There
   is a tradeoff of price, performance and flexibility when vendors make
   a choice to use a fixed function ASIC as opposed to NPU.  Due to the
   inflexibility of the fixed function ASIC, tasks that require
   additional processing such as IPv6 HBH header processing must be
   punted to the control plane.  This problem is still a challenge today
   and is the reason why operators to protect against control plane DOS
   attack vector must drop or ignore HBH options.  As industry shifts to
   Merchant Silicon based NPU evolution from fixed function ASIC, the
   gap will continue to close increasing the viability ubiquitous HBH
   use cases due to now processing in the forwarding plane.

   Most modern routers maintain a strict separation between forwarding
   plane and control plane hardware.  Forwarding plane bandwidth and
   resources are plentiful, while control plane bandwidth and resources
   are constrained.  In order to protect scarce control plane resources,
   routers enforce policies that restrict access from the forwarding
   plane to the control plane.  Effective policies address packets
   containing the HBH Options Extension header, because HBH control
   options require access from the forwarding plane to the control
   plane.  Many network operators perceive HBH Options to be a breach of
   the separation between the forwarding and control planes.  In this
   case HBH control options would be required to be punted to control
   plane by fixed function ASICs as well as NPUs.

   The maximum length of an HBH Options header is 2,048 bytes.  A source
   node can encode hundreds of options in 2,048 bytes
   [I-D.herbert-6man-eh-limits].  With today's technology it would be
   cost prohibitive to be able to process hundreds of options with
   either NPU or proprietary fixed function ASIC.

   While [RFC2460] required that all nodes must examine and process the
   Hop-by-Hop Options header, it is now expected that nodes along a
   packet's delivery path only examine and process the Hop-by-Hop
   Options header if explicitly configured to do so [RFC8200].  This can
   be beneficial in cases where transit nodes are legacy hardware and
   the destination endpoint PE is newer NPU based hardware that can
   process HBH in the forwarding plane.

   IPv6 Extended Header limitations that need to be addressed to make
   HBH processing more efficient and viable in the forwarding plane:

   [RFC8504] defines the IPv6 node requirements and how to protect a
   node from excessive header chain and excessive header options with
   various limitations that can be defined on a node.  [RFC8883] defines



Peng, et al.              Expires 12 April 2022                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           Processing HBH Opt Hdr             October 2021


   ICMPv6 Errors for discarding packets due to processing limits.  Per
   [RFC8200] HBH options must be processed serially.  However, an
   implementation of options processing can be made to be done with more
   parallelism in serial processing grouping of similar options to be
   processed in parallel.

   The IPv6 standard does not currently limit the header chain length or
   number of options that can be encoded.

   Each Option is encoded in a TLV and so processing of a long list of
   TLVs is expensive.  Zero data length encoded options TLVs are a valid
   option.  A DOS vector could be easily generated by encoding 1000 HBH
   options (Zero data length) in a standard 1500 MTU packet.  So now
   imagine if you have a Christmas tree long header chain to parse each
   with many options.

3.  Specification of RFC 8200

   [RFC8200] defines several IPv6 extension header types, including the
   Hop-by-Hop (HBH) Options header.  As specified in [RFC8200], the Hop-
   by-Hop (HBH) Options header is used to carry optional information
   that will be examined and processed by every node along a packet's
   delivery path, and it is identified by a Next Header value of zero in
   the IPv6 header.

   The Hop-by-Hop (HBH) Options header contains the following fields:

   -- Next Header: 8-bit selector, identifies the type of header
   immediately following the Hop-by-Hop Options header.

   -- Hdr Ext Len: 8-bit unsigned integer, the length of the Hop-by-Hop
   Options header in 8-octet units, not including the first 8 octets.

   -- Options: Variable-length field, of length such that the complete
   Hop-by-Hop Options header is an integer multiple of 8 octets long.

   The Hop-by-Hop (HBH) Options header carries a variable number of
   "options" that are encoded in the format of type-length-value (TLV).

   The highest-order two bits (i.e., the ACT bits) of the Option Type
   specify the action that must be taken if the processing IPv6 node
   does not recognize the Option Type.  The third-highest-order bit
   (i.e., the CHG bit) of the Option Type specifies whether or not the
   Option Data of that option can change en route to the packet's final
   destination.






Peng, et al.              Expires 12 April 2022                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           Processing HBH Opt Hdr             October 2021


   While [RFC2460] required that all nodes must examine and process the
   Hop-by-Hop Options header, it is now expected that nodes along a
   packet's delivery path only examine and process the Hop-by-Hop
   Options header if explicitly configured to do so [RFC8200].  It means
   that the HBH processing behavior in a node depends on its
   configuration.

   However, in the current [RFC8200], there is no explicit specification
   of the possible configurations.  Therefore, the nodes may be
   configured to ignore the Hop-by-Hop Options header, drop packets
   containing a Hop-by-Hop Options header, or assign packets containing
   a Hop-by-Hop Options header to the control plane [RFC8200].  Because
   of these likely uncertain processing behaviors, new hop-by-hop
   options are not recommended.

4.  Common Implementations

   In the current common implementations, once an IPv6 packet, with its
   Next Header field set to 0, arrives at a node, it will be directly
   sent to the control plane of the node.  With such implementations,
   the value of the Next Header field in the IPv6 header is the only
   trigger for the default processing behavior.  The option type of each
   option carried within the Hop-by-Hop Options header will not even be
   examined before the packet is sent to the control plane.

   Very often, such processing behavior is the default configuration on
   the node, which is embedded in the implementation and cannot be
   changed or reconfigured.

   Another critical component of IPv6 HBH processing, in some cases
   overlooked, is the operator core network which can be designed to use
   the global Internet routing table for internet traffic and in other
   cases use an overlay MPLS VPN to carry Internet traffic.

   In the global Internet routing table scenario where only an underlay
   global routing table exists, and no VPN overlay carrying customer
   Internet traffic, the IPv6 HBH options can be used as a DOS attack
   vector for both the operator nodes, adjacent inter-as peer nodes as
   well as customer nodes along a path.

   In a case where the Internet routing table is carried in a MPLS VPN
   overlay payload, the HBH options header does not impact the operator
   underlay framework and only impacts the VPN overlay payload and thus
   the operator underlay topmost label global table routing FEC LSP
   instantiation is not impacted as the operator underlay is within the
   operators closed domain.





Peng, et al.              Expires 12 April 2022                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           Processing HBH Opt Hdr             October 2021


   However, HBH options DOS attack vector in the VPN overlay can still
   impact the customer CE destination end nodes as well as other
   adjacent inter-as operators that only use underlay global Internet
   routing table.  In an operator closed domain where MPLS VPN overlay
   is utilized to carry internet traffic, the operator has full control
   of the underlay and IPv6 Extended header chain length as well as the
   number of HBH options encoded.

   In the global routing table scenario for Internet traffic there is no
   way to control the IPv6 Extended header chain length as well as the
   number of HBH options encoded.

4.1.  Historical Reasons

   When IPv6 was first implemented on high-speed routers, HBH options
   were not yet well-understood and ASICs were not as capable as they
   are today.  So, early IPv6 implementations dispatched all packets
   that contain HBH options to their control plane.

4.2.  Consequences

   Such implementation introduces a risk of a DoS attack on the control
   plane of the node, and a large flow of IPv6 packets could congest the
   control plane, causing other critical functions (including routing
   and network management) that are executed on the control plane to
   fail.  Rate limiting mechanisms will cause inconsistent packet drops
   and impact the normal end-to-end IP forwarding of the network
   services.

5.  Operators' Typical Processing

   To mitigate this DoS vulnerability, many operators deployed Access
   Control Lists (ACLs) that discard all packets containing HBH Options.

   [RFC6564] shows the Reports from the field indicating that some IP
   routers deployed within the global Internet are configured either to
   ignore or to drop packets having a hop-by-hop header.  As stated in
   [RFC7872], many network operators perceive HBH Options to be a breach
   of the separation between the forwarding and control planes.
   Therefore, several network operators configured their nodes so as to
   discard all packets containing the HBH Options Extension Header,
   while others configured nodes to forward the packet but to ignore the
   HBH Options.  [RFC7045] also states that hop-by-hop options are not
   handled by many high-speed routers or are processed only on a control
   plane.






Peng, et al.              Expires 12 April 2022                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           Processing HBH Opt Hdr             October 2021


   Due to such behaviors observed and described in these specifications,
   new hop-by-hop options are not recommended in [RFC8200] hence the
   usability of HBH options is severely limited.

6.  New Services

   As IPv6 is being rapidly and widely deployed worldwide, more and more
   applications and network services are migrating to or directly
   adopting IPv6.  More and more new services that require HBH are
   emerging and the HBH Options header is going to be utilized by the
   new services in various scenarios.

   In-situ OAM (IOAM) with IPv6 encapsulation
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options] is one of the examples.  IOAM in
   IPv6 is used to enhance diagnostics of IPv6 networks and complements
   other mechanisms, such as the IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics
   Destination Option described in [RFC8250].  The IOAM data fields are
   encapsulated in "option data" fields of the Hop-by-Hop Options
   header.

   Alternate Marking Method can be used as the passive performance
   measurement tool in an IPv6 domain.  The AltMark Option is defined as
   a new IPv6 extension header option to encode alternate marking
   technique and Hop-by-Hop Options Header is considered
   [I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark].

   The Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option is defined in
   [I-D.ietf-6man-mtu-option] to record the minimum Path MTU along the
   forward path between a source host to a destination host.  This Hop-
   by-Hop option is intended to be used in environments like Data
   Centers and on paths between Data Centers as well as other
   environments including the general Internet.  It provides a useful
   tool for allowing to better take advantage of paths able to support a
   large Path MTU.

   As more services start utilizing the HBH Options header, more packets
   containing HBH Options are going to be injected into the networks.
   According to the current common configuration in most network
   deployments, all the packets of the new services are going to be sent
   to the control plane of the nodes, with the possible consequence of
   causing a DoS on the control plane.  The packets will be dropped and
   the normal IP forwarding may be severely impacted.  The deployment of
   new network services involving multi-vendor interoperability will
   become impossible.

7.  Requirements





Peng, et al.              Expires 12 April 2022                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           Processing HBH Opt Hdr             October 2021


   *  The HBH options header SHOULD NOT become a possible DDoS Vector.
      Therefore, the control plane MUST be preserved from unwanted
      incoming traffic due to HBH header present in the packet.

   *  HBH options SHOULD be designed in a manner so that they don't
      reduce the probability of packet delivery.

   *  HBH processing MUST be efficient.  That is, it MUST be possible to
      produce implementations that perform well at a reasonable cost
      without endanger the security of the router.

   *  The Router Alert Option MUST NOT impact the processing of other
      HBH options that should be processed more quickly.

   *  HBH Options MAY influence how a packet is forwarded.  However,
      with the exception of the Router Alert Option, an HBH Option MUST
      NOT cause control plane state to be created, modified or destroyed
      on the processing node.  As per [RFC6398], protocol developers
      SHOULD avoid future use of the Router Alert Option.

   *  More requirements are to be added.

8.  Migration Strategies

   In order to make the HBH options header usable and facilitate the
   ever-emerging new services to be deployed across multiple vendors'
   devices, the new HBH header scheme, SHOULD allow a smooth migration
   from old to new behavior without disruption time.  Also, co-existence
   between old and news scheme MUST be possible.

9.  Security Considerations

   The same as the Security Considerations apply as in [RFC8200] for the
   part related with the HBH Options header.

10.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not include an IANA request.

11.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge Ron Bonica, Fred Baker, Bob
   Hinden, Stefano Previdi, and Donald Eastlake for their valuable
   review and comments.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References



Peng, et al.              Expires 12 April 2022                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           Processing HBH Opt Hdr             October 2021


   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
              December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.

   [RFC6192]  Dugal, D., Pignataro, C., and R. Dunn, "Protecting the
              Router Control Plane", RFC 6192, DOI 10.17487/RFC6192,
              March 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6192>.

   [RFC6398]  Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "IP Router Alert Considerations and
              Usage", BCP 168, RFC 6398, DOI 10.17487/RFC6398, October
              2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6398>.

   [RFC7045]  Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing
              of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>.

   [RFC7872]  Gont, F., Linkova, J., Chown, T., and W. Liu,
              "Observations on the Dropping of Packets with IPv6
              Extension Headers in the Real World", RFC 7872,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7872, June 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7872>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.herbert-6man-eh-limits]
              Herbert, T., "Limits on Sending and Processing IPv6
              Extension Headers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-herbert-6man-eh-limits-00, 22 June 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-herbert-6man-eh-
              limits-00.txt>.






Peng, et al.              Expires 12 April 2022                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           Processing HBH Opt Hdr             October 2021


   [I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark]
              Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Cociglio, M., Qin, F., and R.
              Pang, "IPv6 Application of the Alternate Marking Method",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-
              alt-mark-10, 14 September 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-
              mark-10.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-6man-mtu-option]
              Hinden, R. M. and G. Fairhurst, "IPv6 Minimum Path MTU
              Hop-by-Hop Option", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option-11, 30 September 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-mtu-
              option-11.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options]
              Bhandari, S. and F. Brockners, "In-situ OAM IPv6 Options",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
              ipv6-options-06, 31 July 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
              ipv6-options-06.txt>.

   [RFC2711]  Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option",
              RFC 2711, DOI 10.17487/RFC2711, October 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2711>.

   [RFC8250]  Elkins, N., Hamilton, R., and M. Ackermann, "IPv6
              Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination
              Option", RFC 8250, DOI 10.17487/RFC8250, September 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8250>.

   [RFC8504]  Chown, T., Loughney, J., and T. Winters, "IPv6 Node
              Requirements", BCP 220, RFC 8504, DOI 10.17487/RFC8504,
              January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8504>.

   [RFC8883]  Herbert, T., "ICMPv6 Errors for Discarding Packets Due to
              Processing Limits", RFC 8883, DOI 10.17487/RFC8883,
              September 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8883>.

Authors' Addresses

   Shuping Peng
   Huawei Technologies
   Beijing
   China

   Email: pengshuping@huawei.com




Peng, et al.              Expires 12 April 2022                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft           Processing HBH Opt Hdr             October 2021


   Zhenbin Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Beijing
   China

   Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com


   Chongfeng Xie
   China Telecom
   China

   Email: xiechf@chinatelecom.cn


   Zhuangzhuang Qin
   China Unicom
   Beijing
   China

   Email: qinzhuangzhuang@chinaunicom.cn


   Gyan Mishra
   Verizon Inc.
   United States of America

   Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com























Peng, et al.              Expires 12 April 2022                [Page 14]