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

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Mon, 06 November 2017 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando@gont.com.ar>
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 BE58B13FC1A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 10:02:13 -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 jXSKq89kVbqV for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 10:02:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08F6413FBBD for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 10:02:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.3.67] (unknown [181.165.119.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCD9D80764; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 19:02:01 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Updating to RFC6434 to deal with 8200-style header insertion by IPIP
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <CAOSSMjUVCSBjbYu3bc7DU+edz2+0+RvU_AMi4FNn2n2075kk9g@mail.gmail.com> <6286.1509408085@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711011139390.16389@uplift.swm.pp.se> <19087.1509567897@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Message-ID: <e339dcb5-1872-eca5-fa5c-f1e5134c2398@gont.com.ar>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 14:57:15 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <19087.1509567897@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Ng675U_ecwVDN1dhHLkwvzYudYA>
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 18:02:14 -0000

On 11/01/2017 05:24 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
>     > On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
>     >> And I think that most host stacks discard such things unless configured to
>     >> expect a tunnel from D.
> 
>     > Agreed.
> 
>     >> What to do?
>     >>
>     >> I'd like to make it clear that the above construct is valid and that hosts
>     >> SHOULD process it to remove the first IPIP hader and then process the packet
>     >> as normal, even if "forwarding" is off. (If inner dst: is *NOT* B, then discard)
> 
>     > Ok. If it's configured to expect this kind of IPIP tunnel,
>     > agreed. Automatically, I don't think it should do this. It should not be
>     > default behaviour. Otoh I agree that ripping of a header isn't "forwarding"
>     > and shouldn't count as such. A 6to4 enabled host with forwarding disabled,
>     > receiving a 6to4 packet addressed to itself, should indeed take off the
>     > header and then process the inner packet.
> 
>     > If the OS comes by default with 6to4 enabled, then I expect it to be able to
>     > handle 6to4 packets coming to it. I wouldn't expect it to behave this way if
>     > 6to4 is turned off, then it should just drop the packet.
> 
> Fair enough for 6to4.  Having 6to4 on or off is a useful setting that the
> end-host should control, and for which the end-host gets some defined
> benefit.
> 
> Removing redundant IPIP headers at the end-host provides no benefit to the
> end-host.  The end-host does this in order to facilitate some unknown service
> in the middle that did something.  If we want to enable such things to work
> without prior permission (cf: "permissionless innovation") then we need to
> fix hosts to do this.

"Permissionless innovation" smells a bit like security issue. :-)


-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1