IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPv6] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [v6ops] Why folks are blocking IPv6 extension headers? (Episode 1000 and counting) (Linux DoS)

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Fri, 26 May 2023 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
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 81915C14E513; Fri, 26 May 2023 07:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 BGT7rUERnWgX; Fri, 26 May 2023 07:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (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 86FB7C151070; Fri, 26 May 2023 07:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.89.9.171] (unknown [91.90.189.54]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B4D722803D0; Fri, 26 May 2023 11:44:29 -0300 (-03)
Message-ID: <93151d86-7a1c-b174-d985-eb0502009f1b@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2023 16:44:28 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>, Arnaud Taddei <arnaud.taddei=40broadcom.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "Manfredi (US), Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>, "opsec@ietf.org" <opsec@ietf.org>
References: <11087a11-476c-5fb8-2ede-e1b3b6e95e48@si6networks.com> <CALx6S343f_FPXVxuZuXB4j=nY-SuTEYrnxb3O5OQ3fv5uPwT8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau1pTVr6ak9rc9x7irg+aLhq0N8_WOyySqx5Syt74HMX=g@mail.gmail.com> <a087b963-1e12-66bf-b93e-5190ce09914b@si6networks.com> <CALx6S349nNA8L5+_1hrbWayqp8GfTYypWy_SP57c_Xxams=csg@mail.gmail.com> <51a066b3-4b4c-d573-ffbe-d6b44a4f193f@gont.com.ar> <a411a1b0-c521-c456-3d44-d99a1cc0975b@gmail.com> <CWXP265MB5153E4687BE45480DBC5A531C2439@CWXP265MB5153.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <27d28224-0cb0-eec2-8d54-f0d175596c85@gmail.com> <f5758380-9967-b67b-744d-dc36b7b599ab@si6networks.com> <72784f8e65f34bcc9f5652c0a553c70c@boeing.com> <1cf9c93b-32db-6d30-9ea9-951172587a9a@si6networks.com> <588C62B7-0FA1-4C3F-8EE2-1CB58A667407@broadcom.com> <f42e5db6d0ad4ed284c7ae9c4d6abecb@huawei.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Organization: SI6 Networks
In-Reply-To: <f42e5db6d0ad4ed284c7ae9c4d6abecb@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/EhQ1_JiaJolr8CrA2RZNcl8qf4E>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [v6ops] Why folks are blocking IPv6 extension headers? (Episode 1000 and counting) (Linux DoS)
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 26 May 2023 14:44:41 -0000

Hi, Eduard,

On 25/5/23 07:21, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
> IMHO: Fernando comes here with a good example (EH DoS). Security is a good reason to block EHs.
> But for business, every feature should be tested, supported, and somebody should pay an additional performance penalty.
> I am not sure which reason is bigger: additional cost or security risk. It depends on the organization type.

Therein lies the issue: If I have no use for it, why should I accept the 
risk? -- "no, thank you"... and move to an issue that actually requires 
a lot of analysis to address :-)

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: F242 FF0E A804 AF81 EB10 2F07 7CA1 321D 663B B494

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email