Re: [v6ops] WG Doc? draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops

otroan@employees.org Thu, 17 March 2016 08:45 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F67B12D583 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 01:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 JZK2WkXRrNJF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 01:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (cowbell.employees.org [65.50.211.142]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5474D12D656 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 01:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52494D7888; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 01:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; s=selector1; bh=0lHFIyB/Fe8UNeklo78BdPjsbZo=; b= pjPxDGPvuLryfcOwaS7v6vZ1HmbxhGDdzqCvjbwp0sYnYrWkcp7O4aclkaPKQS3m 1MHKPIsHeCtvAsAbb5oviBZLZirVPn+35iYodNYQkblYZAD7xQnOlhin6zn+Eg4s a4/j42F4A6RYKU75F3P9U/wWP5KfWZMZaGl6NRaH17M=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=f1PJCckQkObpauYWqVCHRg6rms BcVP7btT+nXTlnfr6RM6ZXU1XGWKlojAorlYZK/yn39HeifIK8DPjG4vsz+EsH2v jW2YTuZTJ/cVcY2OmgqQKRYtHbUDtSZuEc/l3GhJqi2reOXkl/L70gTf7nx61Sq4 xkAnhGpI0FbUCl6aI=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (unknown [173.38.220.46]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DDBD4D7884; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 01:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCFC712B8947; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:45:50 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8411BC2F-B583-4D41-9F4B-7474BA545C88"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <56E9A16B.4030605@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:45:49 +0100
Message-Id: <A2634C00-EBF8-48DA-9604-790F5213F536@employees.org>
References: <A277BE71-BD70-4AFE-97DA-F224D7DBBCB8@cisco.com> <1BB37194-0F5B-45C1-9DFA-87B1C28264D2@employees.org> <CALx6S37vfDcchTa5Tch+BS8rQAGgPP_EeYbVz19WBchSHTqExg@mail.gmail.com> <56E60B0D.6070600@gmail.com> <CALx6S36_Vi4XZfPvCNY42zpbXy9dXeXzwE8KedxYDhne371HHA@mail.gmail.com> <56E6326B.2090303@gmail.com> <CALx6S353ognNHWnjbNSdW5hb_e6Hv3LqLa_r+e9yEW4F=cjH=A@mail.gmail.com> <56E6FC18.1060304@foobar.org> <CALx6S35pcSj_LLnDWJ68KwSYiHeu6FwrXTaR4N2xE6aY7MRO1A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iLbqEvsw0x4dDcA3Zy3SXKUROcQuy5nSynsL9Xi+xrZLg@mail.gmail.com> <566C93D0-62FF-4700-BC05-7F9AF12AF1BD@employees.org> <56E892B8.9030902@foobar.org> <394925FE-FAB1-4FFC-B1CF-4F64CC58F613@employees.org> <56E94275.20700@foobar.org> <3AE1DE20-D735-4262-A3FB-7C01F30BAFA2@employees.org> <56E96F74.7000206@foobar.org> <CALx6S37zP4UvCtBJsvnPN6OmDB0OQDMfRrJNy1XF0t4COStUjQ@mail.gmail.com> <56E98086.504 0209@foobar.org> <EE17974D-EDA4-4732-B29E-B2B3BC36DB86@employees.org> <56E9A16B.4030605@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/06uWsje0TYOtEWp1UDhab81RTmw>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] WG Doc? draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:45:56 -0000

>> that's well known. it just isn't clear to me what you are trying to achieve with this draft?
>> on one hand it alludes to why L4 information might be required in the network, on the other it says why routers aren't able to process the EH chain...
> 
> We go back to square one all the time.
> 
> Please let me summarize:
> 
> 1) Packets with EHs are drpped because middleboxes and routers, in
> practice, need to obtain layer-4 information
> 
> 2) Why do they need such layer-4 information? -- Because of the reasons
> stated in our I-D.
> 
> Everytime this topic comes up, you argue that processing layer-4
> information is not necessary, or ask why ops people do that.
> 
> This document answers that question, so that this gets clarified, and we
> can move on to improve the current state of affairs.
> 
> Otherwise, we live pretending that EHs are deployable, when they are not.
> 
> Looking to the other side, or pretending that the problem doesn't exist
> doesn't help to solve problems.
> 
> The goal of publishing this document is so that we don't have to rehash
> the same discussion every time the topic of EHs come up.

If your goal was to avoid rehashing discussions about EHs then I think you would have been a lot more successful by not publishing this document.

There is no single common view on EHs that apply to all circumstances. Which is why I have strong doubts that whatever you write in this document will make any difference (not that I understand from this document what difference (as in recommendations) it is actually trying to make).

I think Alvaro's comment on draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world also could apply to this draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world/ballot/

If the working group is set on its path on publishing EH related documents, I'll shut up.

Best regards,
Ole