[e2e] IP options inserted in transit

[Shivkumar Kalyanaraman]

Craig,

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
Workshop, 2003.
http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/Homepages/shivkuma/research/papers-rpi.html#mgmt

best
-Shiv
===
Shivkumar Kalyanaraman
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
WWW: http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/Homepages/shivkuma



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.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Craig
>
> E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com
>