IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt> (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net> Mon, 14 October 2013 21:06 UTC

Return-Path: <v6ops@globis.net>
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 547A621F9B21; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 14:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wuW21UDweU3Z; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 14:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from globis01.globis.net (RayH-1-pt.tunnel.tserv11.ams1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f14:62e::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA4E821E80F8; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 14:06:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F79C870098; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 23:06:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from globis01.globis.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.globis.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id icorFUAm68iL; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 23:06:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Rays-iMac-2.local (unknown [192.168.0.3]) (Authenticated sender: Ray.Hunter@globis.net) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2513B87008A; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 23:06:40 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <525C5CDE.3000604@globis.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 23:06:38 +0200
From: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.8 (Macintosh/20130427)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt> (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard
References: <20131002185522.20697.96027.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831811EB23@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <D1F5CE61-253E-4F07-AED1-4A4AB4C4AB68@employees.org> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831811EE66@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <E29381FD-C839-4DBA-8711-3A4EBA83E379@employees.org> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831811EF1C@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <5255D6EE.4050300@gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831811F688@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <5257AD5E.9090806@globis.net> <5257B870.1060003@si6networks.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831812C120@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <52582F8B.8040306@si6networks.com> <52585658.50205@gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831812C654@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <52587EB8.4020506@gmail.com> <f0df0113f68045a1bdadf0155eae5e34@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831812D72D@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831812D72D@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, 6man Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 21:06:48 -0000

> Templin, Fred L <mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> 14 October 2013 19:39
> Hi Ron,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:rbonica@juniper.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 7:07 PM
>> To: Brian E Carpenter; Templin, Fred L
>> Cc: Fernando Gont; 6man Mailing List; ietf@ietf.org; Ray Hunter
>> Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt>
>> (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Is there a way to decouple this discussion from draft-ietf-6man-
>> oversized-header-chain? I would be glad to discuss it in the context of
>> a separate draft.
>
> I don't know if there is a way to decouple it. I believe I have shown
> a way to not mess up tunnels while at the same time not messing up your
> draft. That should be a win-win. In what way would imposing a 1K limit
> on the IPv6 header chain not satisfy the general case?
>
> Thanks - Fred
> fred.l.templin@boeing.com

This draft may not go as far as you'd like (e.g. specifying a hard limit
on header length as some proportion of MTU), and I'm also aware of the
issue of MTU fragmentation and nested tunnels, but I'm still not clear
on how this draft specifically "messes up tunnels."

Can you explain what specific text in the current draft you consider
harmful?

And why that couldn't be dealt with in a later draft (that imposes
additional limits on header chains in specific scenarios)?

Thanks.


>  
>>                                                              Ron
>>
>>
>>>> So, it wasn't necessarily the case that 1280 was a product of
>>>> "thoughtful analysis" so much as the fact that **they were rushing
>> to
>>>> get a spec out the door**. So now, 16 years later, we get to put it
>>>> back on the 6man charter milestone list.
>>> We could have that discussion in 6man, sure, but I don't believe that
>>> it's relevant to the question of whether draft-ietf-6man-oversized-
>>> header-chain
>>> is ready. This draft mitigates a known problem in terms of the
>> current
>>> IPv6 standards.
>>>
>
>

-- 
Regards,
RayH

v2.34.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status