Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-hbh-00.txt

Gyan Mishra <> Fri, 15 October 2021 23:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E22463A0FDA for <>; Fri, 15 Oct 2021 16:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ujp5II6WjNa3 for <>; Fri, 15 Oct 2021 16:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::636]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A08DB3A2953 for <>; Fri, 15 Oct 2021 15:57:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n11so7284172plf.4 for <>; Fri, 15 Oct 2021 15:57:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=OTce9Aop1kRu0/5sj5iSBUcJCIHW11vNg7PcquRhk3g=; b=KmAKGkWoTNyP2sl9ucCrJsNaQXORICzmuImEEWdgsboRkI4fLtN7mMEgqh/Ay0d0ol RqQ6MTCXXhbr+zO94riPL9AzBy4DXFO2BPbqcm+18SuLgES3rXr9GxMJ1Hcu6l/ZkwGi KXYnux8xzgj8+lrlzirVaqefNMWSTaCGZEofJz58k6scqIEeo53zGcwtSgsGiRnIIefG nTVkEKgKsS4sMBI/NHkChjlKOzCzliG5M4FIJpjnBosg3wuA9GBAtvxV/P9kOAGpKn51 0IwuZ1YsXuHY04vdHO8bond2WUMR5sghprK1fr8+U20DdD66GT9wAMxmlqEDRxUS6utH F8cA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OTce9Aop1kRu0/5sj5iSBUcJCIHW11vNg7PcquRhk3g=; b=cx9IWXrKXSKcaXKi2j1BlL6QQxU8JnPZLo/qx63ZehL5/PGrU7Lo+oecCea2TrbEqT nUinGqF9XYWz/aDVmltS7+WGIi9roQZdq+iWVZCmcsnF8M0Ol/aMNm4oLJohFJun5ib/ WoYIT8YnZJ0zSXEsQj4X4Zwn8/sCa4sPYLeglnSPyTZhH+VlLje8Dfc3ceg/SkEHqmqb xkAduCQRUxPuR9WViDtQnF4/FMAh7SOajlAeoFBWaXT5xf9Y7TPDjM3sDJOeRFVixPFm innPTel+MAKsEcIuD1SRe5xBDBQCA6cwDYZl6qPtJa4WH7XV80CObVYufgv+lLuxZjLW 0Htw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533cVQHTvboPANrQcNTKPRyXDUGJj5e8PhIjjRq4wmKmL2R74NbK J+C9ntn7LhqVcE9M5w7kbFkG4f6hurEe88HMSGYQbxP0
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyvEU//is8MOU6TM0jEPqI7AB9MuGI3jl4H5WR89/8TcKFgNVA/hlHBX2C/efUuAu5690S74YZF1Llc3uXiXPs=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:2509:: with SMTP id ns9mr30997030pjb.47.1634338637861; Fri, 15 Oct 2021 15:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Gyan Mishra <>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 18:56:57 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Nick Hilliard <>
Cc: "Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f3d77705ce6c1d66"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-hbh-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 23:05:54 -0000

Hi Nick

The goal of RFC  9098 from a IPv6 operations and security perspective is to
shed light on the issues surrounding all extension headers generalization
as due to the pervasive  Christmas tree issue with excessive header
chaining to issues related to processing of headers in the slow path.

Out of all the headers the one and only that has been historically the most
problematic is HBH and has resulted in operators filtering HBH to avoid
possible DDOS attack vector.

This draft hones in on HBH as it is the most problematic but it is also one
of the most useful for developers to build tools for operators toolbox.

This document also provides  a path forward to make HBH usable and it’s
viability for future development of new features that can be extremely
beneficial to  the internet community.

Kind Regards


On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 10:14 AM Nick Hilliard <> wrote:

> Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) wrote on 12/10/2021 02:01:
> > As people suggested, this draft is positioned as a problem statement
> > draft on the issues of the HBH options header only.
> ok, and this is the point I'm making: we already have a problem
> statement which covers HBH issues - RFC9098, along with an attempted fix
> which is specific to HBH: draft-hinden-6man-hbh-processing.
> Nick
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list


*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email <>*

*M 301 502-1347*