Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-04>
"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Tue, 20 August 2013 00:58 UTC
Return-Path: <heard@pobox.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 3562F11E8180 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 0H6gbyZDz5dK for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (shell4.bayarea.net [209.128.82.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BAD411E811F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 32465 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2013 17:58:04 -0700
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (209.128.82.1) by shell4.bayarea.net with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 19 Aug 2013 17:58:04 -0700
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:58:04 -0700
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-X-Sender: heard@shell4.bayarea.net
To: IPv6 <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-04>
In-Reply-To: <16C5EFD5-A633-4C71-BC6A-0175F8334794@employees.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1308191554170.20395@shell4.bayarea.net>
References: <16C5EFD5-A633-4C71-BC6A-0175F8334794@employees.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-2133786286-31421571-1376952960=:20395"
Content-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1308191649310.20395@shell4.bayarea.net>
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: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 00:58:13 -0000
Greetings, My main question is why this draft is not better integrated with draft-wkumari-long-headers-01 and draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate, which have overlapping or at least related subject matter. The thrust of draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain is to require that all extension headers and the upper layer header appear in the first IPv6 fragment and to define an ICMPv6 error message that may be sent when that condtion is violated (type = Parameter Problem, code = IPv6 first-fragment has incomplete IPv6 header chain). The thrust of draft-wkumari-long-headers-01 is the claim that operators have a requirement to filter at Layer 3 and Layer 4, at line rate, in the network, and that in order to be able to do that, the entire header chain needs to appear within a relatively short initial segment of the IPv6 datagram -- the draft suggests 128 bytes. This is MUCH shorter that the "within the first fragment" constraint specified by draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain. There is also a strong hint (though not an explicit statement) in draft-wkumari-long-headers-01 that entities that do in-network line-rate filtering need to see layer 3 and 4 information in ALL datagrams, which is at the heart of the subject matter of draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate. In my view, draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain should not go to the IESG until: 1.) This WG decides what to do with draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate. If the decision is to admit that IPv6 frgmentation works so poorly in pratice that new protocols must not use it and existing protocols should try not to use it, then a stronger recommendation than just confining the header chain to the initial fragment is probably in order -- perhaps something like what's in draft-wkumari-long-headers. 2.) This WG decides whether the ideas in draft-wkumari-long-headers are basically sound. If so, then it would make sense (to me, anyway) to merge it with draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain. The two drafts already agree (with admirable precision) on the definition of what a complete IPv6 header chain is. One way to merge the documents would be to add a section to draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain recognizing that there are likely to be stringent limits on the size of a header chain that an implementation can process and defining an ICMPv6 error message that may be sent when these limits are exceeded (type = Parameter Problem, code = IPv6 header chain exceeds implementation's capacity). A recommendation on the minimum size header chain that an implementation should support would then be in order. Thanks, Mike Heard On Tue, 13 Aug 2013, Ole Troan wrote: > All, > > This message starts the second two week 6MAN Working Group on advancing: > > Title : Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains > Author(s) : F. Gont, V. Manral, R. Bonica > Filename : draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-04 > Pages : 13 > Date : 2013-08-13 > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-04 > > as a Proposed Standard. Substantive comments and statements of > support for advancing this document should be directed to the > mailing list. Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors. > This last call will end on August 27, 2013. > > The chairs would like to solicit one or two people in the working > group to do a detailed review of the document. We would also > encourage volunteers to act as document shepherds. Please contact > the chairs directly. > > Regards, > > Bob Hinden & Ole Trøan
- 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-hea… Ole Troan
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized… C. M. Heard
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized… Fernando Gont
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized… Ronald Bonica
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized… C. M. Heard
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized… Ronald Bonica
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized… C. M. Heard
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized… Ole Troan
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized… Ronald Bonica
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized… Ronald Bonica
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized… Ole Troan
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized… Ronald Bonica
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized… C. M. Heard
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized… Ronald Bonica
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized… George, Wes