Re: [v6ops] draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world: clarification text

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Mon, 20 April 2015 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D2581B2F1D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 08:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 UpJ4Agssa8s8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 08:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webspace.isi.edu (webspace.isi.edu [128.9.64.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C2A61B2F1F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 08:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (pool-71-103-148-202.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.103.148.202]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t3KFhS0J025112 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 20 Apr 2015 08:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55351EA0.2010700@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 08:43:28 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>, "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
References: <D157BDE1.44CEE%evyncke@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D157BDE1.44CEE%evyncke@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/4e8Q_TnFH-q9wEivcSiOwnCSgGE>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, Merike Kaeo <merike@doubleshotsecurity.com>, "draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world@tools.ietf.org" <draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world: clarification text
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:44:26 -0000


On 4/17/2015 10:58 PM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
> If for some reasons, a router in the middle needs access to layer-4
                                              ^^^^^
> information (IPFIX? DDoS mitigation? ... ?), then the EH chain must be
> parsed which can cause a performance impact.

Let's be clear - "wants" access.

If that's what you want, then that's what you have to pay for (for the
vendor, in complexity to parse the packet to find the L4 header; for the
customer, in price).

But two things ought to be made clear:

	1) this is the router vendor's decision, not a requirement
	of Internet routers

	2) this might not even be worthwhile as we move to more
	secure protocols

Joe