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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Mon, 22 May 2023 17:21 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 E4520C151534; Mon, 22 May 2023 10:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 4rpuVWw8WPU2; Mon, 22 May 2023 10:21:16 -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 20F56C151096; Mon, 22 May 2023 10:21:15 -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 D403628016B; Mon, 22 May 2023 14:21:10 -0300 (-03)
Message-ID: <4c9c3956-6587-99a9-a04e-0d03776ee2c3@si6networks.com>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 19:21:08 +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: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man <ipv6@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>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Organization: SI6 Networks
In-Reply-To: <a411a1b0-c521-c456-3d44-d99a1cc0975b@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/KOGGLqZBYN5xFuElT9WNv227cUA>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] [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: Mon, 22 May 2023 17:21:18 -0000

Hi, Brian,

On 21/5/23 22:28, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[...]
>>> I'm not sure how that's a no brainer, who decides "the ones you really
>>> need"?
>>
>> Typically. whoever runs the destination AS or network. Or the transit
>> AS, if the packets will affect the transit AS.
> 
> And there's the problem. The operator of a large network cannot possibly
> know which extension headers every host on the network needs. It's
> called permissionless innovation, and is supposed to be one of the main
> success factors for the Internet.
> 
>>> If everyone independently makes that decision then we wind up
>>> with an Internet that can't evolve and is perpetually stuck in the
>>> status quo.
>>
>> Well, yes, there's no big brother making decisions about mine or your
>> networks' policies.... hence everyone makes decisions independently.

FWIW, I was referring to filtering at the destination AS or network.



>  From the point of view of hosts, there is an anonymous Big Brother, the
> moment that any upstream operator blocks a wanted extension header.

Well, that depends on the type of network. If we-re referring to an 
enterprise user, yes, by definition there's a Big Brother (security team).

If we're reerring to e.g. a home user (ISP client), then I agree with 
you. But then, there's RFC9098 -- where the ISP is not trying to protect 
their user, but their own infrastructure.



>> (IN a way that's why QUIC runs on top of UDP ... although in the case of
>> QUIC, I bet it has more to do with NATs thatn with explicit firewalling)
> 
> It's to do with *any* barrier to IP layer transparency. This is a very
> basic tussle in the architecture.

That depends on what one means by "IP layer transparency". If you mean 
the existence of e.g. filtering at layer 4+, well, that's probably long 
gone (at least for r.g. enterprise and home networks).

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