> On 8 Dec 2016, at 05:34, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed 2016-12-07 19:30:34 -0500, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: >> Your custom protocol should be designed in a way you get an aligned ip >> header. Most protocols of the IETF follow this mantra and it is always >> possible to e.g. pad options so you end up on aligned boundaries for the >> next header. > > fwiw, i'm not convinced that "most protocols of the IETF follow this > mantra". we've had multiple discussions in different protocol groups > about shaving or bloating by a few bytes here or there in different > protocols, and i don't think anyone has brought up memory alignment as > an argument in any of the discussions i've followed. > If the trade-off is between 1 padding byte and 2 byte alignment versus 3 padding bytes and 4 byte alignment I would definitely opt for 3 padding bytes. I know how that waste feels like to a protocol designer, but I think it is worth it. Maybe the padding/reserved will be useful some day for an additional feature. I remember alignment being discussed and taken very seriously in 6man a couple of times. Often, though, protocol designers did align without much discussion. Implementing unaligned protocols is a pain I've experienced first hand.
