Re: Updating to RFC6434 to deal with 8200-style header insertion by IPIP

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Mon, 06 November 2017 17:07 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando@gont.com.ar>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49ACF13FBB1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 09:07:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lqEnf6onyGoB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 09:07:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C1DE13FB6E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 09:07:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.3.67] (unknown [181.165.119.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B11C8804E9; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 18:07:09 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Updating to RFC6434 to deal with 8200-style header insertion by IPIP
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <CAOSSMjUVCSBjbYu3bc7DU+edz2+0+RvU_AMi4FNn2n2075kk9g@mail.gmail.com> <6286.1509408085@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <f9447eb6-fca1-e54c-ff0b-abafa5986960@gmail.com> <25055.1509413008@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <B5488438-0F4B-4362-9B34-6B6FB74D5A49@employees.org> <19111.1509476559@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <37b32942-7d1a-dfd8-288d-ce1f937fc484@gont.com.ar> <CALx6S34d3X_mkq_HTh9H6kMhmS5z6neTGKo37=3--pveSHAArA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Message-ID: <8843386f-94ba-8887-c35b-900770f49ea3@gont.com.ar>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 14:08:29 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S34d3X_mkq_HTh9H6kMhmS5z6neTGKo37=3--pveSHAArA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3P_SMrp6JDBJEX-R-O48obylneE>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2017 17:07:14 -0000

On 11/06/2017 02:00 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> wrote:
>> On 10/31/2017 04:02 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>
>>> Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>>>     > Without having thought very much about it... I do think requiring a
>>>     > host to accept tunnelled packets to itself by default or not, requires
>>>     > further considerations.
>>>
>>> I agree: it requires further consideration.
>>>
>>>     > I am aware of no implementation that would support this. I would also
>>>     > be worried about this opening the door for "alternate" paths into the
>>>     > host stack.
>>>
>>> I agree. Nobody does it this way.
>>> Yet 8200 (and 2460 before it) says that this is the way to insert headers.
>>
>> No. EHs are not inserted or removed. When you do IPinIP, you are
>> creating a brad-new packet, *not* inserting EHs in the existing packet.
>>
> I agree.
> 
> I think the sticking point is going whether a node can blindly perform
> IP-IP encapsulation on packets to arbitrary destinations (as opposed
> to using IP-IP for explicitly tunneling across a network). 

Answer: No. :-)


> This
> requires the assumption that all nodes in the downstream path will
> forward a packet with IP-IP and the added extension headers, and that
> the destination will accept such packets.

First condition: unlikely. Second condition: extremely unlikely.


> The problem is that if a
> packet is dropped because of the encapsulation or EHs and no ICMP
> error is returned to the encapsulator then there is no way to recover.
> The original source host might see packets being dropped on a
> connection but will have no idea why. The encapsulator sees no problem
> and so it won't modify its behavior.

And, as Ole mention, additional issues caused by the possible fragmentation.

Don't rely on layer-3 in layer-3 encapsulation. ENcapsulate in a
transport layer that can segment data as appropriate to avoid layer 3
fragmentation.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1