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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 31 October 2017 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 9557A138FA0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
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 mGDJnd9SDh27 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 600D113F686 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DCBE2024A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 15:03:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 996D681694 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 15:02:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Updating to RFC6434 to deal with 8200-style header insertion by IPIP
In-Reply-To: <B5488438-0F4B-4362-9B34-6B6FB74D5A49@employees.org>
References: <CAOSSMjUVCSBjbYu3bc7DU+edz2+0+RvU_AMi4FNn2n2075kk9g@mail.gmail.com> <6286.1509408085@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <f9447eb6-fca1-e54c-ff0b-abafa5986960@gmail.com> <25055.1509413008@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <B5488438-0F4B-4362-9B34-6B6FB74D5A49@employees.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7-RC3; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 15:02:39 -0400
Message-ID: <19111.1509476559@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/k861jG0qu2Pd3UMLPDBwbx8QCG0>
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: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 19:03:26 -0000

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
    > Without having thought very much about it... I do think requiring a
    > host to accept tunnelled packets to itself by default or not, requires
    > further considerations.

I agree: it requires further consideration.

    > I am aware of no implementation that would support this. I would also
    > be worried about this opening the door for "alternate" paths into the
    > host stack.

I agree. Nobody does it this way.
Yet 8200 (and 2460 before it) says that this is the way to insert headers.

One of 6463 or 2460/8200 must be wrong.

Essentially 8200 says to do something that doesn't work.
Should we be at all surprised that there is was much push to do it a different way?

If we don't fix 6434 to make it work, then our hard fought compromise in 8200
is moot.


ps: I'm not advocating for changing 8200.



--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-