Re: Is there an official Extension Headers List?

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 23 May 2012 09:53 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 D7BA221F85FF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2012 02:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 bz9p8f+pZ2zN for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2012 02:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2693621F8596 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 May 2012 02:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eaaq13 with SMTP id q13so2075207eaa.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 May 2012 02:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=CYaIaK+LEMqwHaZLVj57buNzvixnXeIVY4yy41bQbNU=; b=Wu8IVt6cwrxeKjx1vDrztJSorvD5hVmpKef+bCL7WdGpT9+gIlJ2rFxLG72TUakUeD CV+PwWB9vs5mJ41PO+SZCY7Eo6E2f9OluH/G9jMplHapX/jOrrgEW1rjKPBJoEEi9w6Q 8SeJSCN91pjMAw/3Xi7JyqFpFIp5wB+nJfKPC++f2OgpljrwRvqCCBlgxyTi9YWHuCEs i61ZPVvnkIYmPB/p097KpVYuRXQnCKa46xQi6zGojFdJZvDOmgbnnJEHcwvhu5gYBNjD j75Pdh3wz4al8f+SE9I/YWj4FdD3WUqK/+sPHocniBWttppgud8iyWNGzWlay6sWQsAk rpCw==
Received: by 10.213.34.141 with SMTP id l13mr701678ebd.128.1337766786247; Wed, 23 May 2012 02:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.232.110.88] (c088.al.cl.cam.ac.uk. [128.232.110.88]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f16sm120525472eec.2.2012.05.23.02.53.04 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 23 May 2012 02:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4FBCB377.5000001@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 10:52:55 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
Subject: Re: Is there an official Extension Headers List?
References: <8A317FD8C00FEE448E52D4EE5B56BB3E022FC95C314E@RZJC1EX.jr1.local> <923297B868FB664FBFA90FCC255696DF025E70@BY2PRD0510MB366.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <4FBBB4CE.9040405@gmail.com>, <4FBBB816.1060500@unfix.org> <8A317FD8C00FEE448E52D4EE5B56BB3E022FC95A0E1A@RZJC1EX.jr1.local> <4FBC89AB.1010000@gmail.com> <823DF82F-B00B-42DA-8536-50B740EB0CD9@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <823DF82F-B00B-42DA-8536-50B740EB0CD9@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "'ipv6@ietf.org'" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "Duncan, Jeremy" <jeremy.duncan@salientfed.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: Wed, 23 May 2012 09:53:07 -0000

On 2012-05-23 08:47, Ole Trøan wrote:
> Brian,
> 
>> I agree with that, but we seem to have a small problem.
>>
>> RFC 2460 says that unrecognized extension headers should
>> lead to a discard and an ICMP Parameter Problem message,
>> and RFC 6434 confirms this - but without adding the extension
>> headers defined since RFC 2460. Thus the Internet is partially
>> opaque to MIPv6, SHIM6 and HIP, depending on which vendors
>> happen to allow for them.
> 
> RFC2460:
>    With one exception, extension headers are not examined or processed
>    by any node along a packet's delivery path, until the packet reaches
>    the node (or each of the set of nodes, in the case of multicast)
>    identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header.

I wish it was true. There are definitely boxes that are opaque to
unrecognized headers. You are correct that the text in 2460 about
discard is not supposed to apply to forwarding nodes, which are only
supposed to examine the hop-by-hop options header, but this seems to
have been misunderstood by some implementors.

    Brian