Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sat, 19 September 2020 10:36 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 157643A1096 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 03:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ALMOr0HJPunM for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 03:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from skynet.si6networks.com (fernando.ipv6-lab.net [IPv6:2001:9e0:803:1::195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48FA13A1091 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 03:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:1088:8aa:4c05:95c5:912] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:1088:8aa:4c05:95c5:912]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by skynet.si6networks.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8458010D; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 07:36:49 -0300 (-03)
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <b697ce45-3c95-f423-ffb7-34f5976496d9@si6networks.com> <F50F122E-158C-4B2F-803E-A443CD576DDC@employees.org>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <4bd943dc-71e9-5799-ea60-3623b5f83a8a@si6networks.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2020 07:18:38 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F50F122E-158C-4B2F-803E-A443CD576DDC@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/2zdw6GM3URB5I8psdsDXl35bpqk>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 19 Sep 2020 10:36:59 -0000

Hi, Ole,

On 19/9/20 06:48, Ole Troan wrote:
>> On 19 Sep 2020, at 09:19, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello, Gyan,
>>
>>> On 19/9/20 01:06, Gyan Mishra wrote:
>>> Hi Fernando
>>> In this draft can we talk add point about the catch 22 situation described in RFC 7045 excerpt below bottom of introduction:
>>> I think this issue is critical to the overall issue with processing of EHs and operators filtering EHs in some cases unnecessarily.
>>
>> What, specifically, would you like us to say about it?
>>
>> Note: RFC6564 has not (and will not) improve the situation in this respect. Since EHs share the same namespece as "upper layer protocols", then, in order for a middlebox to know it can parse a header as in the RFC6564 format, it has to now that the corresponding "protocol number" identifies an EH (as opposed to an upper layer protocol).
>>
>> RFC6564 would have been useful only if we had closed the door to the definition of new EHs with a new "protocol number", and had specified that any new EHs would share the same protocol number ("XX", to have been assigned by IANA at the time RFC6564 was published).
>>
> 
> Right, but only if the assumption that middleboxes would allow arbitrary headers in between network and transport is true.  That seems unlikely to me.

I agree. I don't think they would allow arbitrary headers in between 
network and transport. That said, *if* they were meaning to, they 
wouldn't be able to handle "unknown EHs", anyway. i.e., RFC6564 does not 
really deliver what's probably implied by the document: parsing unknown EHs.

In that sense, RFC6564 is unable to make any difference. Whether 
providing such feature (common EH format for all EHs, from now on) would 
have made a difference, is hard to tell... But I'd argue it wouldn't.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492