IPv6 Hop-by-hop and Destination Options Forwarding In Routers
draft-ouellette-v6ops-eh-router-forwarding-00
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Kyle Ouellette | ||
| Last updated | 2024-03-04 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ouellette-v6ops-eh-router-forwarding-00
IPv6 Operations K. Ouellette
Internet-Draft UNH-IOL
Intended status: Informational 4 March 2024
Expires: 5 September 2024
IPv6 Hop-by-hop and Destination Options Forwarding In Routers
draft-ouellette-v6ops-eh-router-forwarding-00
Abstract
It has become accepted that packets containing IPv6 Extension
Headers, especially Hop-by-hop Options, are frequently dropped on the
Internet. However, the question still remains as to why they get
dropped and what type of devices may be dropping them. This document
describes research conducted to isolate routers in a simple topology,
with minimal configuration, and shows that router implementations
alone are likely not the cause of packets containing IPv6 Extension
Headers being dropped on the Internet.
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/.
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 5 September 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Ouellette Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HBH and DO Forwarding In Routers March 2024
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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Layer 3 Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Routers Under Test (RUTs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Performance and Diagnostics Metrics (PDM) Destination
Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Variable Length Hop-by-hop and Destination Options . . . 4
5. Results and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Performance and Diagnostics Metrics (PDM) Destination
Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Variable Length Hop-by-hop and Destination Options . . . 5
5.2.1. Single Extension Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2.2. Multiple Extension Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. Notable Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Determine Causes of Failed Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Additional Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.3. Additional Extension Headers and Chains . . . . . . . . . 11
7.4. Testing Under Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Ouellette Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HBH and DO Forwarding In Routers March 2024
1. Introduction
It has become well known that packets containing IPv6 [RFC8200]
Extension Headers (EHs), especially Hop-by-Hop Options, are often
dropped when traversing the Internet. However, the question still
remains as to what are the primary contributors to these packet drops
and under what circumstances are the packets dropped. Some of the
potential culprits include ACLs, firewalls, routers, load balancers,
and more. It also is not known whether these packets are dropped
intentionally (e.g., ACLs) or unintentionally (e.g., firmware bugs).
This document describes the research conducted and results of
isolating routers to better understand what role they may play, if
any, in the dropping of EHs. Specifically, this research is aiming
to understand whether or not router implementations may be the cause
of dropped packets containing EHs.
2. Layer 3 Topology
The layer 3 topology used for these experiments can be seen below in
Figure 1. Layer 3 is specifically noted because layer 2 switches
exist in the topology as well as some components being virtualized,
however, this is not expected to have an effect on the traversal of
packets containing EHs.
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| Client |-----| Router |-----| Server |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
Figure 1: Simple Two Network Topology
Both client and server are virtual machines running Ubuntu 22.04 and
are configured to inject EHs into all egress packets. Additionally,
the server has an out-of-the-box installation of an apache2 web
server. Details of the routers used can be found below in Section 3.
3. Routers Under Test (RUTs)
Six routers in total were tested and are comprised of three major
router manufacturers. Of the six routers, five are physical and the
sixth is virtual. Due to confidentiality requirements, the specific
manufacturers and models of the routers tested cannot be disclosed,
therefore, the routers will be referred to with a numerical value
from here on.
Ouellette Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HBH and DO Forwarding In Routers March 2024
3.1. Configuration
For these experiments, all RUTs have very minimal configurations. No
routing protocols are enabled and no ACLs are configured. The
routers are configured to simply forward IPv6 traffic between the two
interfaces.
4. Experiments
For all experiments, both the client and server are configured to
inject varying EHs into all egress packets. A single HTTP request is
then made from the client to the server and it was observed that the
client received an HTTP reply containing the expected EHs. This
indicates that the RUT properly forwarded all packets associated with
both the HTTP request and reply that contained EHs without dropping
the packets or stripping the EHs from them
[I-D.herbert-eh-inflight-removal]. To execute the HTTP request, the
curl utility was used.
4.1. Performance and Diagnostics Metrics (PDM) Destination Option
[RFC8250] defines the PDM destination option (DO), an option used for
collecting performance metrics such as round-trip delay and server
delay. For this experiment, a PDM implementation leveraging Extended
Berkley Packet Filter (eBPF) was used
[I-D.elkins-v6ops-bpf-pdm-ebpf].
The PDM DO was chosen to test with as it is a proposed standard and
access to an existing implementation was provided for the use of this
research.
4.2. Variable Length Hop-by-hop and Destination Options
The second type of experiment run was testing how the RUTs processed
both HBH and DO of varying header sizes. For both HBH and DO, sizes
of 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, and 512 bytes were tested. In addition
to this, tests with an EH chain of both HBH and DO for all
enumerations of the 8, 16, 32, 64, 126, and 256 header sizes were
also run. Overall, there were 48 unique scenarios tested.
To achieve this, the IPv6 Extension Headers Injection with eBPF
(https://github.com/IurmanJ/ebpf-ipv6-exthdr-injection) project was
used which allows for injecting many different types of extension
headers with control over the size of each header.
Ouellette Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HBH and DO Forwarding In Routers March 2024
5. Results and Findings
The following section reports on the findings of these experiments.
Tables in this section will denote whether the router properly
forwarded packets containing the EH(s) or not. Scenarios in which
the router forwards the packets will be denoted with a check mark (✓)
and scenarios where the router does not forward the packets will be
denoted with an X (X).
5.1. Performance and Diagnostics Metrics (PDM) Destination Option
As can be seen in Table 1, all six of the routers tested properly
forwarded packets containing the PDM DO.
+==========+==========+==========+==========+==========+==========+
| Router 1 | Router 2 | Router 3 | Router 4 | Router 5 | Router 6 |
+==========+==========+==========+==========+==========+==========+
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Table 1: PDM Experiment Results
5.2. Variable Length Hop-by-hop and Destination Options
5.2.1. Single Extension Header
Table 2 shows the results of a single variable sized HBH or DO EH.
Seen below, all but one router forwards the EHs in every scenario.
Ouellette Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HBH and DO Forwarding In Routers March 2024
+==========+==========+========+========+========+========+========+
| Scenario | Router 1 | Router | Router | Router | Router | Router |
| | | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
+==========+==========+========+========+========+========+========+
| HBH 8 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+----------+----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| HBH 16 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+----------+----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| HBH 32 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+----------+----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| HBH 64 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+----------+----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| HBH 128 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+----------+----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| HBH 256 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | X | ✓ |
+----------+----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| HBH 512 | ? | ? | ✓ | ? | ? | ? |
+----------+----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| DO 8 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+----------+----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| DO 16 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+----------+----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| DO 32 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+----------+----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| DO 64 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+----------+----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| DO 128 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+----------+----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| DO 256 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | X | ✓ |
+----------+----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| DO 512 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | X | ✓ |
+----------+----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Table 2: Single EH Experiment Results
Ouellette Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HBH and DO Forwarding In Routers March 2024
There are two observations to note regarding these results. The
first is that five of the six routers have a question mark (?) as
their result for the 512-byte HBH scenario. This is because this
scenario was unable to be tested for these five routers. The
reasoning for this can be found in Section 5.3. The other
observation to make is that out of the six routers, Router 5 was the
only router unable to forward packets for each scenario. Based on
these results, it suggests that Router 5 has a limitation on the
maximum size of an EH in a packet. If a packet contains an EH larger
than this ceiling, it is dropped. In fact, further testing has shown
that a 176-byte HBH or DO is the largest Router 5 is able to properly
forward. When increasing to 184-bytes, the initial TCP SYN packet is
dropped and therefore the TCP connection is not established and the
HTTP request cannot be made.
5.2.2. Multiple Extension Headers
The following section includes a matrix for each RUT indicating
whether or not it forwarded the HTTP traffic when the packets include
both a HBH and DO of varying lengths.
+=====+=====+===+====+====+====+=====+=====+
| DO | HBH | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | 128 | 256 |
+=====+=====+===+====+====+====+=====+=====+
| 8 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 16 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 32 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 64 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 128 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 256 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
Table 3: Router 1 HBH and DO Results
Ouellette Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HBH and DO Forwarding In Routers March 2024
+=====+=====+===+====+====+====+=====+=====+
| DO | HBH | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | 128 | 256 |
+=====+=====+===+====+====+====+=====+=====+
| 8 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 16 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 32 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 64 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 128 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 256 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
Table 4: Router 2 HBH and DO Results
+=====+=====+===+====+====+====+=====+=====+
| DO | HBH | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | 128 | 256 |
+=====+=====+===+====+====+====+=====+=====+
| 8 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 16 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 32 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 64 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 128 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 256 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
Table 5: Router 3 HBH and DO Results
Ouellette Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HBH and DO Forwarding In Routers March 2024
+=====+=====+===+====+====+====+=====+=====+
| DO | HBH | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | 128 | 256 |
+=====+=====+===+====+====+====+=====+=====+
| 8 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 16 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 32 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 64 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 128 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 256 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
Table 6: Router 4 HBH and DO Results
+=====+=====+===+====+====+====+=====+=====+
| DO | HBH | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | 128 | 256 |
+=====+=====+===+====+====+====+=====+=====+
| 8 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | X |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 16 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | X |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 32 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | X |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 64 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | X | X |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 128 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | X | X | X |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 256 | | X | X | X | X | X | X |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
Table 7: Router 5 HBH and DO Results
Ouellette Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HBH and DO Forwarding In Routers March 2024
+=====+=====+===+====+====+====+=====+=====+
| DO | HBH | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | 128 | 256 |
+=====+=====+===+====+====+====+=====+=====+
| 8 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 16 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 32 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 64 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 128 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| 256 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
+-----+-----+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+
Table 8: Router 6 HBH and DO Results
Of the six routers, Router 5 (Table 7) was the only router that did
not properly forward packets for all scenarios. As was seen in
Section 5.2.1, Router 5 did not forward packets for the 256-byte and
512-byte scenarios which suggests that Router 5 only processes
packets containing EHs up to a certain length. However, in
conjunction with these results, it seems as if Router 5 may have
limitations based on the total EH chain length rather than individual
EHs. It does however properly process smaller EH configurations.
5.3. Notable Findings
In these results, there are two findings to note. The first is that
as seen in Section 5.2.1 and Section 5.2.2, a router was discovered
(i.e., Router 5) that dropped packets in certain scenarios. However,
the exact cause of this is still unknown as additional testing not
described in this document has shown that whether or not packets are
dropped is more nuanced than simply just being based on the length of
the EH chain.
Ouellette Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HBH and DO Forwarding In Routers March 2024
The second notable finding is that as seen in Table 2, the 512-byte
HBH scenario was unable to be performed for five out of the six
routers. The exact cause is still being investigated, however,
packets specifically with a 512-byte HBH option were dropped by the
layer 2 switching infrastructure. Notably, both 504-byte and
520-byte HBH options traversed the infrastructure without a problem,
and only 512-byte HBH options were affected. Although not recorded
in the tables above, both 504-byte and 520-byte HBH scenarios were
tested on Routers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 and they all forwarded the
traffic as expected. Because of this, it is believed this is due to
a firmware bug in one of the switches and was an unexpected finding.
Router 3 was the only router not affected by this due to it having a
different layer 2 path and not traversing the problematic switch.
6. Conclusion
Even though this research was conducted on a relatively small sample
size of manufacturers and routers, the results indicate that router
implementations in general are likely not the culprits for dropping
packets containing HBH or DO EHs. One router did face limitations
when processing larger EHs, however, EH chains of that size may not
be practical when used in a real-world network and therefore may not
be a concern. The most surprising finding was that a layer 2 switch
was the cause of dropped packets containing 512-byte HBH options.
7. Future Work
7.1. Determine Causes of Failed Scenarios
Currently it is not known what the limitation in Router 5 is caused
by and it is also not known why a switch in the layer 2
infrastructure is dropping packets specifically with 512-byte HBH
options. Next steps will include trying to determine why these
behaviors are occurring and making the manufacturers aware of these
limitations with the hopes that they address them if possible.
7.2. Additional Routers
A logical next step would be to test more routers, especially across
a wider breadth of manufacturers. Additionally, more testing could
be performed with varying connectors and link speeds.
7.3. Additional Extension Headers and Chains
This research investigated how routers handle varying sizes of single
HBH and DO EHs as well as chains of the two. However, more tests
could be run with other standalone EHs as well as in various chain
configurations.
Ouellette Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HBH and DO Forwarding In Routers March 2024
7.4. Testing Under Load
As was mentioned in Section 4, these experiments were run with a
single HTTP request and therefore were not run under load which may
be the case for routers on the open internet. It is possible that a
router's EH processing varies based on whether it is under load or
not, especially in the context of processing packets on the fast vs
slow path. Because of this, running these same experiments at higher
throughputs may be interesting to explore.
8. Security Considerations
This document has no security considerations.
9. Privacy Considerations
This document has no privacy considerations.
10. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[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/rfc/rfc8200>.
[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/rfc/rfc8250>.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.elkins-v6ops-bpf-pdm-ebpf]
Elkins, N., Sharma, C., Umesh, A., V, B., and M. P.
Tahiliani, "Implementation and Performance Evaluation of
PDM using eBPF", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
elkins-v6ops-bpf-pdm-ebpf-00, 20 February 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-elkins-v6ops-
bpf-pdm-ebpf-00>.
Ouellette Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HBH and DO Forwarding In Routers March 2024
[I-D.herbert-eh-inflight-removal]
Herbert, T., "Infight Removal of IPv6 Hop-by-Hop and
Routing Headers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
herbert-eh-inflight-removal-04, 22 February 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-herbert-eh-
inflight-removal-04>.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to acknowledge and thank the following
individuals. Nalini Elkins and Michael Ackermann for their guidance
and support throughout this research. Balajinaidu V, Amogh Umesh,
and Chinmaya Sharma for developing and providing access to their PDM
DO implementation. Justin Iurman for developing and providing access
to their IPv6 Extension Headers Injection with eBPF project.
Michayla Newcombe and Ben Patton for their review and feedback of
this document.
Author's Address
Kyle Ouellette
University of New Hampshire InterOperability Laboratory
United States of America
Phone: +1 603 862 3941
Email: kouellette@iol.unh.edu
Ouellette Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 13]