Re: Network Tokens and HBH option
Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Mon, 13 July 2020 15:34 UTC
Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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 35D393A1337; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 08:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.118
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.118 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 q7xZw7qaJctq; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 08:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DD763A1238; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 08:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 013D0548068; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 17:34:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id EE4DA440043; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 17:34:22 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 17:34:22 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>, network-tokens@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Network Tokens and HBH option
Message-ID: <20200713153422.GZ42197@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <CALx6S35sXX6J75dzQH=hN7pC5=9wZP=o6SqOMpivGPtOdo+YNQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2iUA9SWJoNsDNFdNYDksKcw8YE2oSB1eJBfy9hiJXb4g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr2iUA9SWJoNsDNFdNYDksKcw8YE2oSB1eJBfy9hiJXb4g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/iJAfMzJNIRtIo0wwUIVUILfC7-Y>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 13 Jul 2020 15:34:31 -0000
Lorenzo, Some of your reasons are exactly why i think it would be great if we had a forum to think about how to overcome these issues without being constrained by RFC8200, even if for reearch purposes. Aka: COuld we build headers that do not have these issues, and if so, how. We have started to look at some of the problems we see in the current network headers in draft-bryant-arch-fwd-layer-ps. We have refrained in that spec to do ore than problem analysis. Would love to see feedback about that doc. more inline: On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 05:14:06PM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > Is a hop-by-hop option the right tool here? They have several disadvantages: > > 1. The presence of IPv6 extension headers often causes packets to be > dropped, so anything that relies on them is impossible to deploy reliably > on the Internet. Indeed. But i am deeply convinced that a good amount of this problem is because of bad specs and bad implementations. I make this argument for e.g: router-alert, where i think we could easily redo it with a new extension header with better spec, leading to better implementations. Just as an example. Besides rfc820 limits, bad specs, bad implementations, there is the fourth horseman of the pocalypse, which are on-path filters that filter things they shouldn't filter purely because there is money to be made in selling the vision of: I have a product that can apply policies on anything it can understand, and a great policy is to deny anything that you do not explicitly know and permit. There are solutions for this like DPI based tokens (Malice draft) or encryption (i think Tom has/had this), but i think it would be good to put this into a separate bucket. Aka: this is only needed for internet paths, but IMHO not for controlled network paths. To most this seems like we would already need this level of complexity because Internet paths are most important, but i disagree: I think most networks are controlled, including all traffic that looks like Internet as long as it stays within the access provider of either subscriber of a connection. > 2. They don't work with forwarded traffic (e.g., a mobile hotspot) > because routers aren't really permitted to add extension headers. Its expensive to work with rfc8200, e.g.: you need to add another encap header and figue ouut where its to be removed. Hence the desire to at least research better network headers as well to compare. > 3. They are expensive because IIRC for a long time the standards said > that all intermediate nodes on the path must process them. Many router > implementations do not do this, but probably some do. The main issue is the cost in ignoring headers you don't bother about because because you either don't implement tem, or they are not enabled/configured. Cheers Toerless > On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 12:54 AM Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > This is a draft on "Network Tokens" which is a form of host-to-network > > signaling for the purposes of providing a highly granular network > > services and QoS to applications. A primary mechanism to carry the > > signaling is expected to be a Hop-by-Hop option. > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yiakoumis-network-tokens-01 > > > > There is also a mailing list in > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/network-tokens > > > > We are planning to present in tsvwg and app aware networking and > > possibly have a side meeting on this topic in IETF108. > > > > Thanks, > > Tom > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > ipv6@ietf.org > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --- tte@cs.fau.de
- Network Tokens and HBH option Tom Herbert
- Re: Network Tokens and HBH option Erik Kline
- Re: Network Tokens and HBH option Yiannis Yiakoumis
- Re: Network Tokens and HBH option Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Network Tokens and HBH option Yiannis Yiakoumis
- Re: Network Tokens and HBH option Toerless Eckert
- Re: Network Tokens and HBH option Tom Herbert
- Re: Network Tokens and HBH option Tom Herbert
- Re: Network Tokens and HBH option Philip Homburg
- Re: Network Tokens and HBH option Tom Herbert