Re: [rrg] IPv4 options handling
Ran Atkinson <ran.atkinson@gmail.com> Tue, 20 April 2010 11:50 UTC
Return-Path: <ran.atkinson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ABDF3A698A for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 04:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.013
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.013 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.586, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9BT64DgGRELb for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 04:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3151A3A68E8 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 04:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws18 with SMTP id 18so733256vws.13 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 04:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=yPc3t+1UUVICXZSL1ak6Od3cK5/hZ9DcO9zfVyvCD9Q=; b=A7dJSD2+iLYBPB7F8oYTBDJp2UnJ75NbOD3oAuivixJGPTBhnJpJOLZs8llBNJMykJ 2l6yMQG4Pj5EQ3kJfbbiWQDKu4o6KzeQw4g/rWa5xPxoTc7HGuUMuAzSJsNf61UcLYXN v1zlhVmkozJTaL+MkEZTGw90Nx1Dzf86mmemo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=NF5fcuSx3aZSHZV1tJLRkuB4dojfnJwJOexpyXRSs2A1VfDUMp/ecaiPijcx8mb6ju plDYyGygnC0iqDuylNwaYriLtB5b+dg0Lb8v8cdPt+ZbQUDVT7liP0JNkWSXp5cAWL5z VSoaHKic/3IU1JrieSZRGhOrcGQuMFNPXoqo0=
Received: by 10.220.108.76 with SMTP id e12mr4558463vcp.24.1271764204008; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 04:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.20.3] (pool-70-104-194-43.nrflva.fios.verizon.net [70.104.194.43]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a1sm23408519vcp.9.2010.04.20.04.50.02 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 20 Apr 2010 04:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Ran Atkinson <ran.atkinson@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <n2r4e913c5d1004191903z64a21096i54eca540fefc7102@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 07:50:01 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <57D5438E-8BBD-468B-80EC-F9918B326AE5@gmail.com>
References: <643ACA20-AC4C-4AEB-A0B2-A5D65A1FC22B@gmail.com> <1831AA56-7AD7-41F4-A41C-65FBCF18D468@cisco.com> <0E635C94-3D46-41B0-9A47-E45FE6F84598@gmail.com> <4BCCDBDB.2060409@gmail.com> <EBF6796D-E4F0-4FE0-8C93-3EBE08EAD99F@gmail.com> <n2r4e913c5d1004191903z64a21096i54eca540fefc7102@mail.gmail.com>
To: Xiaoliang Zhao <xleonzhao@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
Cc: IRTF Routing RG <rrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [rrg] IPv4 options handling
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:50:14 -0000
On 19 Apr 2010, at 22:03 , Xiaoliang Zhao wrote: >> ISP folks are telling me that the presence of IPv4 options >> is *ignored* by the IP backbone routers. Put in other words, > > As far as I know, backbone routers at least response to Router Alert > option because RSVP is uing it. A number of ISP folks tell me that while backbone routers *can* be configured to respond differently to IPv4 packets containing options (e.g. Router Alert), their backbone routers have been configured to NOT do that, and instead to ignore all IPv4 options. RSVP is not widely deployed for per-flow QoS, and never has been. An obvious question would be whether LDP is more widely deployed than RSVP (e.g. in an MPLS context). I don't have any data on relative use of LDP vs RSVP for MPLS signalling. Yours, Ran
- [rrg] ILNP clarification Ran Atkinson
- Re: [rrg] ILNP clarification Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rrg] ILNP clarification Fred Baker
- Re: [rrg] ILNP clarification Ran Atkinson
- Re: [rrg] ILNP clarification Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rrg] ILNP clarification Ran Atkinson
- Re: [rrg] ILNP clarification Xiaoliang Zhao
- Re: [rrg] ILNP clarification Eliot Lear
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 options handling Ran Atkinson
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 options handling Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 options handling Pekka Savola
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 options handling Xiaoliang Zhao