IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Tue, 29 March 2016 09:46 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
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 8611412D0A4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 02:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 2lQSJSpdhh2h for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 02:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x234.google.com (mail-vk0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0ED9612D12A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 02:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x234.google.com with SMTP id e185so11642211vkb.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 02:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=1Qlwmg7aDG/erqG7Vi8ijkQMzC8Hjm1sSzm6esED1zQ=; b=CB3fHmwK6pL+sxF4kWprcFQdf74D9C5JA3C8oIj86o7eTUHgk727C6+/LYq/7HaDgI msJUcYJ2idfzHphN29BrRYsIhndARBVWJjfd74qIlJvbqnux7LNcYxiDX6cl3wvGcyc7 IX2IUEdAzarwGj3dDDa/w4PmFJ1KsFynBETiZRBlzTiMDC6XtU09H2/0SDvtvtPeFFJm 3Pm3OGnabVyIe1Zy7wg/MCtntxLaA7fhQ+7Dl8bE/+UG5zqNNB8DN8k2eZv5XhLR1eGQ FkTci4+c38dlHaq5UdAIR68azTuCF8osQfq9SUQAr3G35IjzVJiCdElnnVESHoOcePj2 g8mQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=1Qlwmg7aDG/erqG7Vi8ijkQMzC8Hjm1sSzm6esED1zQ=; b=VP9BAfXtmcK1Yn/jbOgEOe+I6kUfaOXFkC1T5m6Icc/vlEGaoYHgmcjBQZ8ZjBRy9X GiXbLu7Ozgk/401DgXqqTzq4Pt2lKBWkEuXrrRoCQWklD7tsTe+YeRmkLB1NQ33HY6B6 +EnUR4eXt1ivN42da0pcf0BgeoarwsTMTja4DKPY5ia192aKuy6PokasB3QT0UUi4xAY Q60OEwYurzWjEj0ddBtPv1AHbSf3IaafoFkter4uvbkHUsyHjiEZPfM4flnj77H77z4z 9GnlMSoLk6qAF/+xjc+F0eQmjTe6t2bF/198fq9TNVEHOj0EDQ9m1LLCG8AzeAlDJVCQ SBUA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIA+6QQA+vAGXHhNsGe47hN99qAXjmlsVO3+gBGalPmmaxAYQjOAP7SzWEbTGZAl5/gb6rp7ACbJifvfQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.167.195 with SMTP id q186mr585550vke.113.1459244254139; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 02:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.159.32.228 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 02:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.159.32.228 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 02:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E2C0BF9F-806C-4ACC-86CE-1B678628E687@employees.org>
References: <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> <56E98086.5040209@foobar.org> <EE17974D-EDA4-4732-B29E-B2B3BC36DB86@employees.org> <20160328183844.GR62900@Space.Net> <56F9A22B.2030301@isi.edu> <5E619124-0A60-45BB-86AA-7F7D5CC614AD@cisco.com> <56F9AE53.8060903@gmail.com> <56F9BEA3.9050409@isi.edu> <4542AA33-F4FA-4F52-B5FE-9ABF2627CD5E@cisco.com> <56F9C856.2030403@gmail.com> <56F9C915.9070408@isi.edu> <E2C0BF9F-806C-4ACC-86CE-1B678628E687@employees.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 20:37:34 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2z2R9N4b1Y=zQCuw2niwYzaRtten+8mDHpsjfYXSh8pJQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11425fba689c16052f2cc713"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/0v3CwjJwW1avlu9gnCk34Zf4zOk>
Cc: v6ops list <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: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:46:05 -0000

On 29 Mar 2016 7:31 PM, <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>
> >> Yes. It's a bug in RFC2460 that this ambiguity arises.
> >
> > I took it as a feature. IMO, the idea of a chain enables this feature,
> > and I don't think it should be so quickly dismissed as potentially
useful.
> >
> > I appreciate that not everyone agrees, though.
>
> It does break PMTUD though.
>

Which I think is because of an expectation that the device identified in
the packet source address (the "sender") is responsible for creating the
whole packet. It can't be a "unicast source address" field if there are
multiple sources of the information in the packet.

It also breaks troubleshooting methods and assumptions about the source
address field that have been true for IPv6, IPv4 and many, if not all, past
layer 3 protocols.

One perspective on tunneling is that when it modifies the packet, it adds
another source address field to record that another device,  other than the
original packet source device, has made additions to the packet.

Regards,
Mark.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email