Re: [Int-area] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ipv4-eh-03.txt

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Tue, 05 March 2024 00:11 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8245C1C637B for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 16:11:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.657
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.657 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hp-ENtE2yXLL for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 16:11:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05309C19ECBC for <int-area@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 16:11:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:51]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TpbZM1dPBznkNC; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 01:11:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 4TpbZM0gXjzkn1g; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 01:11:07 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2024 01:11:07 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: int-area <int-area@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <ZeZjGyxmuapXz5tb@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <170865175505.14082.3856617737779580933@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALx6S363oh+7rNMaMa0s+9A-xeyLBy+ct-Q_Bx0xQm_di1PPJA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S363oh+7rNMaMa0s+9A-xeyLBy+ct-Q_Bx0xQm_di1PPJA@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/f1cKeZZkc0vMcsfCCCWBdVu31zE>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ipv4-eh-03.txt
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area WG Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2024 00:11:17 -0000

Just some questions about AH/ESP here:

What actually is (so far, without your draft) the technical benefits
and/or differences of ESP and AH in IPv6 being classified as IPv6
extension headers, as opposed in IPv4, where they are currently
defined as "yet another (next level) Protocol ?

Any difference in APIs for example ? I guess i might be able to implement
ESP/AH in IPv6 in user-level because i can expose extension header
to user-level UDP sockets (not 100% sure), whereas in IPv4 i would need
a (raw) IP socket to get them up to userland ??

Any other functional differences ? Aka: i couldn't find a simple:

"If i want to define a new protocol header, should i call it an
 extension header or an ipv6 extension header - for Dummies" ?

(at least for those examined only on the receiver obviously. HBH i do get.

I think you did not write it explicitly, but i would assume the IANA
Assigned Internet Protocols Numbers column "IPv6 Extension Header" would
be renamed to "IP/IPv6 Extension Header". But when this was done
to AH/ESP, and there actually is a functional difference expressed by
this extension header (as opposed to non-extension header) status, then
what be the imapct of this ? Aka: I upgrade my linux kernel to extension
header and all my AH/ESP breaks ?  Or i do get the benefit of above
(userland access) ?

Would there be any (backward compatibility) reason to have new codepoints in IPv4 for ESP/AH
with this extension header status and leave the existing (non extension
header) codepoints alone ?

Cheers
    Toerless

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 05:40:31PM -0800, Tom Herbert wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I updated the IPv4 extension headers draft. I structured it to be
> self-contained without any normative references for IPv6 RFCs. It's a
> little bigger, but about 80% of the text is cut-and-paste from other
> RFCs and drafts.
> 
> Comments are appreciated!
> 
> Tom
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
> Date: Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 5:29 PM
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ipv4-eh-03.txt
> To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
> 
> 
> A new version of Internet-Draft draft-herbert-ipv4-eh-03.txt has been
> successfully submitted by Tom Herbert and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Name:     draft-herbert-ipv4-eh
> Revision: 03
> Title:    IPv4 Extension Headers and Flow Label
> Date:     2024-02-23
> Group:    Individual Submission
> Pages:    47
> URL:      https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-herbert-ipv4-eh-03.txt
> Status:   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-herbert-ipv4-eh/
> HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-herbert-ipv4-eh
> Diff:     https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-herbert-ipv4-eh-03
> 
> Abstract:
> 
>    This specification defines extension headers for IPv4 and an IPv4
>    flow label.  The goal is to provide a uniform and feasible method of
>    extensibility that is common between IPv4 and IPv6.
> 
> 
> 
> The IETF Secretariat
> 

-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de