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

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 06 November 2017 11:11 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 6B78913FAF3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 03:11:00 -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, 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 eggdTcBDegX0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 03:10:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from accordion.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1ADA113FAE1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 03:10:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from h.hanazo.no (unknown [173.38.220.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by accordion.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8B0372D50CA; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 11:10:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05BB200A59020; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 12:10:53 +0100 (CET)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Message-Id: <F72E6924-8442-4FF9-A474-2FF3726CFA69@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C6DC8B9E-7253-4166-A32A-9D33472537DD"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.0 \(3445.1.7\))
Subject: Re: Updating to RFC6434 to deal with 8200-style header insertion by IPIP
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 12:10:52 +0100
In-Reply-To: <B232868B-8DE5-4F54-87E7-A16974AB9658@jisc.ac.uk>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
References: <CACL_3VETxNVQ+YD5j6ZiWjycQ=ojAuWwB23offNdVKm+S9c_7A@mail.gmail.com> <23308.1509623865@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <CACL_3VFrcombGczXU6Zz=Pk1u2GE=wGG-r+yEefdHai1REqXmQ@mail.gmail.com> <c8911f45-2afc-9d26-c0a8-1017d034a251@gmail.com> <CACL_3VEjp2bJAAGgqaKcqdqHoitE6vw6M3=qO6YauVoKN-26=A@mail.gmail.com> <f7feace2-86d2-a2f0-5662-469405aa32e8@gmail.com> <7923.1509845822@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <B232868B-8DE5-4F54-87E7-A16974AB9658@jisc.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.1.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/CnlFpIGdmYQO_Fn28CMLuWo61Zk>
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 11:11:01 -0000

Tim,

>>> Yes, that particular elephant stands politely and quietly in the corner
>>> of the room. However, I'd just read the text you cite when I wrote my
>>> message and I'll stick to what I said: we *specify* action for an
>>> unrecognized extension header, but we ignore the elephant and *don't*
>>> specify action for an unrecognized ULP. Consider it a drafting error,
>>> or a design error. I agree with you about the practical effect: an
>>> unexpected IPIP packet is likely to generate ICMP 1 today.
>> 
>> okay, so shouldn't 6463 fix this part at least?
> 
> The question is whether we add such “gaps” to 6434-bis, or spin up a new draft to update 8200, which might then be reflected in a future Node Reqs update.
> I’m easy either way as an author of the doc, but would err towards minimising adding new material to 6434-bis, and trying where possible to just point to existing documents.
> 
> Some input from the chairs would be welcome.

If we are talking about the action for unrecognised next headers, I do not see a gap in existing specifications.
If one want to engage in the sport of extreme hair splitting, I wouldn't mind if 6434bis were to add some a descriptive paragraph of "unrecognized next header including ULP are discarded as specified in 8200...".

If we are talking about the issue of IP in IP encapsulated packets sent to a unsuspecting host, that in my opinion requires a new document.

Best regards,
Ole