[v6ops] Why operators filter IPv6 packets with extension headers?

[Brian E Carpenter]

On 01/09/2015 22:06, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Hi, Eric,
> 
> Thanks so much for the timely feedback! Please find some comments inline
> (more in a subsequent email)...
> 
> 
> On 09/01/2015 05:42 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:

...
>> - the processing of HbH would kill the Internet of course (at least with
>> most routers), should HbH be separately called?
> 
> I think that'd be sensible. -- and seem to recall that there was some
> I-D (RFC?) focusing on HbH? (or was it on router alert option?)

You're probably thinking of draft-baker-6man-hbh-header-handling,
but there's a slight conflict between that and RFC 7045, which
made a normative change to HbH by downgrading them to SHOULD:

   The IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options header SHOULD be processed by
   intermediate forwarding nodes as described in [RFC2460].  However, it
   is to be expected that high-performance routers will either ignore it
   or assign packets containing it to a slow processing path.  Designers
   planning to use a hop-by-hop option need to be aware of this likely
   behaviour.

Also of course the next version of 2460bis will revisit this topic.

      Brian