[e2e] IP options inserted in transit
shivkuma at ecse.rpi.edu
Thu Aug 7 09:02:23 PDT 2003
We have a paper in FDNA this time on explicit routing where we have
intermediate routers insert a hash or process/swap it. In our
implementations we leveraged the fact that the RFCs do not forbid this
function. I think this kind of flexibility is important for evolutionary
extensions to IP.
Here is the paper if you are interested:
Hema Tahilramani Kaur, Shiv Kalyanaraman, Andreas Weiss, Shifalika Kanwar,
Ayesha Gandhi, ``BANANAS: An Evolutionary Framework for Explicit and
Multipath Routing in the Internet,'' TO appear in SIGCOMM FDNA
Associate Professor, Dept of ECSE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)
110, 8th Street, Room JEC 6003, Troy NY 12180-3590
Ph: 518 276 8979 Fax: 518 276 4403
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Craig Partridge wrote:
> Hi folks:
> I've been reading through some of the IP options text in RFCs 791 and 1122
> and I can't seem to find a definitive answer to the following question:
> Can a router (or other intermediate device) add and remove IP options
> from a datagram?
> In particular, if I define a new option -- say a datagram sequencing option
> that might allow me to put datagrams sent over different paths back in order --
> can a router that's splitting traffic over multiple channels put the option
> in, and then a router near the destination that is receiving from those
> multiple channels, take the option out?
> It appears to be legal, yet all the options text I've seen speaks in terms
> of a host putting the option in the IP datagram (including enough space
> for intermediate systems to place data in the option), so there's a
> disconnect here.
> E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com
More information about the end2end-interest