Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08

[Tobias Gondrom <[e-mail]>]

Thank you for your answers.
All the best, Tobias


On 17/10/13 01:59, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 10/16/2013 07:34 PM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
>>>> 1. A question, less from a security, but interoperability perspective:
>>>> is there any deplyoment data on any potential backwards compatibility
>>>> issues with current IPv6 deployments? Namely are there noteworthy
>>>> deployments with large IPv6 header chains beyond the first fragment
>>>> currently in deployment?
>>> No.
>> Does this "No" mean:
>> (1) there are no noteworthey deployments or does it only mean
>> (2) we have no data at all and therefore don't know what we will break
>> with the update?
> There are no specified use cases for such oversized header chains (for
> instance, look at the extension header types and options specified so far).
>
> Besides, what I've seen and what others have indicated is the same: with
> the addition that any intentional use of extension headers typically
> leads to packet drops (see draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-05.txt).
>
>
>>>> 2. section 5 third paragraph:
>>>> I wonder whether we should be more strict and replace the "MAY" with a
>>>> "SHOULD"?
>>>> This would make intermediate behavior consistent with the host from the
>>>> previous paragraph and should avoid inconsistencies within the network
>>>> topology?
>>> IIRC, the "intermmediate systems MAY drop" is so that intermmediate
>>> systems are not required to process the entire header chain. -- i.e.:
>>> "If you want to drop such packets, you're free to... but we don't
>>> require e.g. routers to process the entire IPv6 header chain to find
>>> whether the entire header chain is present and then decide whether to
>>> drop or not".
>>>
>>> OTOH, the "MAY send an ICMPv6 error message" could be changed to "if you
>>> drop, you SHOULD send an ICMPv6 error message", I guess.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>> I see. Actually I meant both, but let's look at them separately:
>>
>> 1. "intermmediate systems MAY drop"
>> Actually a "SHOULD" does not require them either, but substantially
>> encourages more than the "MAY".
> An implementation that does not follow SHOULDs is said to be
> "conditionally complaint" where in our case, we deem a middle-box that
> doesn't drop such packets as fully-cumpliant  hence the "MAY".
>
> If a middle-box does not really need to look at the upper-layer header,
> then requiring (SHOULD) it to look at the header chain just to drop the
> offending packets is rather overkill.
>
>
>> Question: I assume from your answer,
>> most intermediate systems just pass through without checking that the
>> header conform to updated 2460,
> Well, packets that do not contain the entire IPv6 header chain in the
> first fragment are currently RFC2460-compliant -- that's exactly why
> we're pushing this document.
>
>
>
>> 2. For the ICMPv6 error message, you are right that should be a "SHOULD"
>> not a "MAY" as it is on the condition of the dropped packet.
> I will change this unless anyone objects (or points out something I may
> have missed).
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best regards,