[e2e] IP options inserted in transit

Angelo Dell'Aera buffer at antifork.org
Fri Aug 8 16:40:49 PDT 2003

Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 12:20:16 -0500 (CDT)
David Borman <dab at windriver.com> wrote:

>Not to mention ensuring that there  was enough room in the packet for
>the intermediate router to insert the information.  That's what I see
>as the biggest issue in Craig's question.  The entire packet could be
>the maximum size, not providing  any space to insert new options, (or
>more rarely, the IP header could  already be at the maximum length of
>60 bytes)  Other than that, I  don't see any problem  with IP options
>being added and  removed by intermediate routers.  I'd  view it along
>the same  lines as  encapsulating/decapsulating the packet  along the

I don't agree. Letting intermediate routers adding/deleting IP options
on-the-fly means  just losing   performance. If a  router is  asked to
modify every IP header (whose size could be variable), it will waste a
lot of time searching where it's  possible to add one or more bytes or
which bytes to remove. It doesn't seem reasonable. If really needed, I
think  it's better  to include  this  information directly  in the  IP
header thus  letting the router know  where to find it (if useful) not
wasting time in "parsing the datagram".


- --

Angelo Dell'Aera 
Antifork Research, Inc.	  	http://buffer.antifork.org

PGP information in e-mail header

Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the end2end-interest mailing list