Re: draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-05

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 2:10 PM Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 16, 2019, at 11:48 AM, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> > In draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-05, you propose sending and ICMP Parameter Problem message when the following errors occur:
> >
> >          - Extension header too big
> >          - Extension header chain too long
> >          - Too many options in extension header
> >          - Option too big
> >
> > However, you send an ICMP Destination Unreachable message in response to aggregate header limits.
> >
> > Why not send an ICMP Parameter Problem message in cases?
>
> Good question.  It would make the draft simpler and avoid having to create RFC4884 extension headers.
>

Ron, Bob,

There was already discussion of this on the list.

Originally, Parameter Problem code was defined for this, however that
was considered inconsistent with the definition of Parameter Problem
(RFC4443):

"If an IPv6 node processing a packet finds a problem with a field in
the IPv6 header or extension headers such that it cannot complete
processing the packet"

Aggregate header limits can apply to headers other than just IP header
and extension headers (e.g. UDP encapsulation headers). Hence, we went
with Destination Unreachable and subsequently why we need to invoke
the ICMP extended header format to get the error pointer.

Tom

> Bob
>
>
> >
> >                                                                                          Ron
> >
> >
> > Juniper Business Use Only
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>