Re: Revision of draft-gont-6man-ipv6-universal-extension-header

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Tue, 22 April 2014 05:51 UTC

Return-Path: <heard@pobox.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C7C81A003A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=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 apXHN5vCsoeZ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (shell4.bayarea.net [209.128.82.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 511E51A0084 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 11772 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2014 22:51:35 -0700
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (209.128.82.1) by shell4.bayarea.net with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 21 Apr 2014 22:51:35 -0700
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:51:35 -0700
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-X-Sender: heard@shell4.bayarea.net
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Subject: Re: Revision of draft-gont-6man-ipv6-universal-extension-header
In-Reply-To: <5355B58F.1090908@gont.com.ar>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1404212233210.2136@shell4.bayarea.net>
References: <20140408103907.23507.7047.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5343D86B.3060502@si6networks.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1404190704120.26097@shell4.bayarea.net> <5355B58F.1090908@gont.com.ar>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/DbQ4Z6a7Dsq5CUsvGtPVquW1dBI
Cc: 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 05:51:50 -0000

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014, Fernando Gont wrote:
> > The paragraph above does use the word "node" rather than "host" but 
> > in the context of RFC 2460 it does refer specifically to an end 
> > system ("the node [...] identified in the Destination Address field 
> > of the IPv6 header").
> 
> Not really. It could be a router, if the packet used a Routing Header.

True, but that does not change my main point: end systems are 
required by 2460 to discard any extension header they don't 
understand, so a UEH does not help them work better.  The problem it 
solves is that of middleboxes being unable to find the upper-layer 
header.

> > As far as I am aware, there have been no updates to the IPv6 
> > specifications requiring or even suggesting that end systems should 
> > ever try to skip over extension headers that they do not recognize.  
> > The problem exists only for middleboxes that examine and act on 
> > extension headers, so I recommend that this draft drop all 
> > discussion of end systems.
> 
> I understand your point. Me, I think it would be worthwhile to note that
> you cannot really "incrementally deploy" new EHs... at least without an
> Universal Extension Header.

Yes, that's true, since the barrier to incremental deployment is 
that middleboxes can't presently parse past them.

> > Furthermore, I don't see how the extension header problem discussed 
> > in this draft impedes deployment of transport protocols.  To be 
> > sure, here are problems with middleboxes filtering out transport 
> > protocols that they don't know, but that is an issue even without 
> > extension headers.
> 
> Right now, there's the misleading assumption (confusion?) that you *can*
> parse past unknown EHs. I wouldn't be surprised if a middlebox that
> receives a packet with a new transport protocol assumes that the
> corresponding header is really an EH, and tries to parse it according to
> RFC6564, and hence discard th packet.

Point taken.

//cmh