IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Tue, 29 March 2016 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 3C06E12D147 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 7F8X9Akt2q0m for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50D2812DB17 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 12:30:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2915; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1459279827; x=1460489427; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=eorW2PWiGYGVD45tc37RIyGh0Np6iLDMvb0f2qgdCkQ=; b=Z5thEiwolW8NBZWWkco1ij2XZIBo823+rrUCDJXoirKyZWC+STmlmrU0 1Db+/dfZpaJsv30WZvikwiXHzFbrL+IY13/ncW2cTnZsTE2Agf/OytPcY 1hTWjNc4rxJIUzZESBmI7q/coxUmnWj9tmOpt/idthVmPtmtrYsJTmVWX k=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 833
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DUAgDJ1vpW/4wNJK1dDoMgU30GungOgXAdhXACgTY4FAEBAQEBAQFkJ4RBAQEBAwF5BQsCAQgYLjIlAgQOBQ6IEQgOwC8BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQENBASIEIJRh2iCKwWXbAGDHoFmbYgVjw2PDgEeAUODKjtsh0F+AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,412,1454976000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="87976791"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 29 Mar 2016 19:30:26 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-011.cisco.com (xch-rcd-011.cisco.com [173.37.102.21]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2TJUQll018951 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 29 Mar 2016 19:30:26 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-013.cisco.com (173.37.102.23) by XCH-RCD-011.cisco.com (173.37.102.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:30:25 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-013.cisco.com ([173.37.102.23]) by XCH-RCD-013.cisco.com ([173.37.102.23]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:30:25 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] WG Doc? draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops
Thread-Index: AQHRiTnjuC9r2YC2skGBfdtx5Op9bQ==
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 19:30:25 +0000
Message-ID: <FD3BDC45-3A18-447F-B61A-ACE1D457E2B3@cisco.com>
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> <56FAA1EA.80206@isi.edu> <4B4BD1F4-6381-400D-A82E-524DDAD5170B@employees.org> <56FAD68B.1030200@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <56FAD68B.1030200@isi.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.123]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9F41A646-2F03-4262-942C-9BA31A0B8869"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/96ZOwsi21G08VdE8dbmRIr1-08U>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <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 20:07:14 -0000

> On Mar 29, 2016, at 12:24 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/29/2016 11:13 AM, otroan@employees.org wrote:
>> Joe,
>> 
>>>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> Only increasing the length would break PMTUD, but that's already
>>> deprecated in favor of PLMTUD - which would still work.
>> 
>> in 6man we're in the process of moving RFC1981 to Internet Standard.
>> in your view, what should we do with this document?
> 
> I wasn't aware we were still bothering differentiating tracks within
> standards-track (does anyone really care?), but if we are, then we might
> reconsider whether to shift this to IS.

Perhaps. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6410

> IS indicates a level of confidence that I think we don't have, given the
> level to which ICMPs are filtered and the potential of the techniques in
> that RFC to result in blackholes if not otherwise addressed.
> 
> Finally, I am astounded that this change would occur in 6man. This is
> not an IPv6-specific doc . Any such change should happen in INTAREA IMO.
> IETF WGs have some serious issues with the concept of scope, IMHO.

RFC 1981 is specific to IPv6. RFC 4821, as you say, is about TCP and transports that operate like it.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email