IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com> Thu, 20 April 2017 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <sprevidi@cisco.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 A38BB129B35; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 AehB48ghYhHO; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:09:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3989129B2F; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:09:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1988; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1492708190; x=1493917790; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=GRTyG7LSjjt+LkxvT1/7IAeIToBHYUwAvuTbEWZGex4=; b=Qw6JuqPQ+SYYciCdNHSr8PUpolqP1ENJ2xkJy1Kt4p3U1s14t8CI/Cvr joT9RD9k08fyUOXSEJwSneQ/wHeThBXZGtaELYK5b4SSAkeM5XB+P6pAi DsARStTFvIZdg4PUWWCl8sIQ0pV+xXXQJEL8j6d33nKlEMkVAbuwssIal A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0A8AQAw6/hY/40NJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1RhgQwHg2CKFZFliB6IYYRkgg8hC4V4AhqDYz8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFFQEBAQECAQEBIRE6CwULAgEIGAICJgICAh8GCxUFCwIEDgWKBAMNCA6qX4Imhy8Ng2YBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYELhUiCCIJuglGCBoMGLoIxBYk1k0Q7AY45hEmRVYsQiQMBHziBBWMVRBEBhQmBSnWIIYENAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,225,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="413059533"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 20 Apr 2017 17:09:49 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-007.cisco.com (xch-rtp-007.cisco.com [64.101.220.147]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3KH9mPV002595 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:09:49 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-010.cisco.com (64.101.220.150) by XCH-RTP-007.cisco.com (64.101.220.147) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:09:48 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-010.cisco.com ([64.101.220.150]) by XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com ([64.101.220.150]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:09:48 -0400
From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
CC: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis@ietf.org>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>, "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Topic: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHSufjq+97r94diikaiouggLxQGJw==
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:09:48 +0000
Message-ID: <6532A4A6-D168-4E9A-A6E6-205E8D965A67@cisco.com>
References: <149201127005.15808.3277140025315157500.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <248F8BA5-48D6-4933-B45F-7F1B20477C2C@employees.org> <3C06A5F9-19B9-48E1-BB67-57D540E5E38D@kuehlewind.net> <A5628A89-3830-4851-87F1-AE8329597DAE@gmail.com> <58B249A0-2F0B-4AD6-890D-BB0F0594DEE1@kuehlewind.net> <0c7d3a7b-99c9-dbef-d6cc-9a4a94cb9c9f@gmail.com> <4AE56E75-78D4-43EA-8118-8195FD8A3D08@kuehlewind.net> <4fc2ef36-cd17-58f1-8089-a5645f08ad45@gmail.com> <D7EE44C3-04DB-4CFD-836F-2BFA74A35268@employees.org> <90DFC565-B4E7-45E2-BE6A-0B67895E87F8@gmail.com> <CA+MHpBr7aeuyd8h5n6U6Q4jD_gtLCKsPJUgQqQuhgkEE3DGwqg@mail.gmail.com> <D41A10C3-74D4-45EE-8161-C344CB30329A@kuehlewind.net> <5E28EF66-7BE1-4F11-88F3-6D928870A9FE@kuehlewind.net> <616cb74d-cc15-6c26-cb1d-612dfcddd353@gmail.com> <99E119A3-4BEA-4EE4-9DC1-7B434CAAE016@kuehlewind.net> <8EF4BCDA-ADB9-4EF4-A873-95CA67C6D7F3@employees.org> <8d127de1-a1b6-8406-c234-192fcbf01ad4@si6networks.com> <65C701D2-A0FF-40E5-B88D-E2E9C7260E02@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <65C701D2-A0FF-40E5-B88D-E2E9C7260E02@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.61.217.160]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <842C8FCC725BD744AE1F5489FF91A317@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/X8KVP49s8j0Dy6iYYjydamqa3YU>
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: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:09:52 -0000

> On Apr 20, 2017, at 5:47 PM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Fernando,
> 
>> On Apr 20, 2017, at 6:01 AM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> ….
>>> 
>>> Dropping unknown extension headers in transit networks is relatively
>>> rare. With the HBH being an exception, with almost a 40% drop. (Note
>>> that there are no HBH option that would make a lot of sense across
>>> the Internet, so again chicken and egg.)
>> 
>> Based on RFC7872 ("Observations on the Dropping of Packets with IPv6
>> Extension Headers in the Real World"), your statement is incorrect.
>> 
>> Transit routers do filter packets with EHs, whether known or unknown.
> 
> I think this confirms that the current text which recommends against defining new EH is correct.


Well, in fact I believe it’s the exact opposite.

Definition of new EHs must be done carefully but I don’t see why it should be prevented, knowing also that transit routers would anyway filter EH-packets out (hence mitigate the impact of new EHs introduction).

EH is probably _the_ most innovative and powerful feature of ipv6. 

s.


> 
> Thanks,
> Bob
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email