Re: [v6ops] [ipv6-wg] Extension Headers / Impact on Security Devices

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Fri, 26 June 2015 12:55 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
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 7F7201B2DAB for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 05:55:06 -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] 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 B5cDNmG72SzT for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 05:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DA4A1B2DAA for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 05:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0864F880D1; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 05:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brians-mbp.jhuapl.edu (swifi-nat.jhuapl.edu [128.244.87.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B52013693E8; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 05:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <558D4BA2.4060608@innovationslab.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 08:54:58 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, v6ops@ietf.org
References: <20150515105406.GA3028@ernw.de> <87siav2m6p.fsf@stepladder-it.com> <F1D4404E5E6C614EB9D3083F4D15A7E7C4A92C@hex02> <20150517191841.GA26929@ernw.de> <C07DF957-9A2D-4962-ABAA-DE61F5C5D533@cisco.com> <20150617081424.GA15514@ernw.de> <505DC30B-8ED1-4C75-A13B-FAC9D4E5348C@cisco.com> <20150617174315.GA17641@ernw.de> <5581B2DF.8040207@innovationslab.net> <20150617180409.GA17739@ernw.de> <5581BAE9.3060205@innovationslab.net> <558D051E.1040405@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <558D051E.1040405@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LUUMlOQkBac76JxSPfh3A5IUEXrj8xMEa"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/5Z9NozoXzJfMoPFf78w1psGyn2c>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [ipv6-wg] Extension Headers / Impact on Security Devices
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: <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: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:55:06 -0000


On 6/26/15 3:54 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 06/17/2015 03:22 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
> 
>>> fragment" of a single datagram coming in, this is probably not an
>>> option for all those types of security controls (intrusion detectors,
>>> First Hop Security mechanisms, Infrastructure ACLs) expected to work
>>> mostly in wire speed. It is hence not an option for a number of
>>> networks using such techniques which is why they usually drop all
>>> extension headers except for AH, ESP and (in a few cases) FH. Doing
>>> so is a reasonable decision from their side and will not exactly
>>> encourage widespread development of new services using extension
>>> headers. Which then raises the question: what's the benefit of this
>>> thing called extension headers which do not provide much use today
>>> and might - given there's a growing number of networks acting as
>>> described - not provide much use tomorrow? This thing then seems to
>>> add an undesirable layer of complexity.
>>
>> Hmm... The old NFR platform, which I think got purchased by Checkpoint,
>> performed fragmentation re-assembly prior to doing its analysis.  So, at
>> least some products close that hole.
> 
> ... for IPv6 traffic?
> 

I believe so from what I remember (but I can't find documentation right
off).  The NFR was purchased by Checkpoint and became the IPS-1 and the
IPs-1 supports IPv6.

Regards,
Brian