Re: [tsvwg] Teredo Extensions vs. draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-18

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

> On Apr 9, 2022, at 3:40 AM, Erik Auerswald <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 09.04.22 01:42, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> On Apr 8, 2022, at 4:16 PM, C. M. Heard <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 3:42 PM Joe TOuch wrote:
>>>>    In addition, Section 5.2.3 of [RFC4380] states:
>>>> 
>>>>       An IPv6 packet is deemed valid if it conforms to [RFC2460]: the
>>>>       protocol identifier should indicate an IPv6 packet and the payload
>>>>       length should be consistent with the length of the UDP datagram in
>>>>       which the packet is encapsulated.  In addition, the client should
>>>>       check that the IPv6 destination address correspond [sic] to its
>>>>       own Teredo address.
>>> 
>>> I read that as implying UDP inside IPv6; there’s nothing in RFC2460 that establishes a relationship between IPv4 length and UDP length or between the protocol that encapsulates IPv6 (e.g., Ethernet or other link layers, or Teredo here) and the IPv6 length.
>>> 
>>> So I’ll admit that one threw me...
>>> 
>>> I'll admit that I had the same reaction on a quick read …
>> FWIW, RFC 2460 mentions UDP in only a few places. One notable one (Sec 8.1) clarifies explicitly that the pseudo header (used for UDP checkums) uses the transport length, not the IP length. So devices that do otherwise (as we’ve been talking) are in clear violation of this, if they do otherwise for IPv6 packets.
>> There is never a discussion of the layer in which the IPv6 packet resides. Thus I think our confusion is valid. I plan to issue an errata  to 4380 clarifying that this “conformance” isn’t specified in that RFC, and one for 6081 that clarifies it is equally irrelevant.
>> Unless anyone can suggest there’s a valid way to interpret the text in reference to 2460...
> 
> I concur that the text in RFC 4380 section 5.2.3 seems to be
> a bit unclear.  I do not think it is wrong.
> 
> A possible interpretation could be that RFC 2460 (back then)
> specified IPv6 and thus how to determine the length of the
> encapsulated IPv6 packet.

“Conforms to 2460” is explained with the text after the colon.

The only part of that text that defines conformance is the protocol ID.

Nothing in 2460 asserts anything about the IPv6 length being consistent with the length of the protocol in which that IPv6 is placed as payload. 8200 says nothing about this either.

Either way, the authors of those docs and their ADs can decide what to do with the errata.

Joe