Re: [v6ops] Some stats on IPv6 fragments and EH filtering on the Internet

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Tue, 05 November 2013 02:23 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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 0C49F21E818C for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:23:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.558
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1KuUXen+vMcR for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:22:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F74421E82ED for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:22:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rA52Mks1023048; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 02:22:46 GMT
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk rA52Mks1023048
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=201304; t=1383618167; bh=shZLN0JiPR/JL+C9NzuYkAH8oCM=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=eZhcV7CpMtBkczstEtajTTLFcgZRltkkWk47wWJDmWhHm1BtINwNIKXBHPVmagXbi fH3a74cPyyWBHYBRrETGQxOmRXHBkaZBKgl12lXI8ZvvCpqQRdr1SrwSdfomidry0l /MZSSa3R83q/nTTn9SDbm04c/EU//agja2uOP37E=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id pA42Mk0959635093bR ret-id none; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 02:22:46 +0000
Received: from wireless-v6.meeting.ietf.org (wireless-v6.meeting.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:67c:370:160:6865:dd3f:9c57:76dd] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rA52LQJg028359 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 5 Nov 2013 02:21:28 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BASp6fBg4i3P9Ld6PNnuC8N0Syovj3zJebX8hBRZNFVJKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 02:21:25 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|9997439ba011697baaae10f67ec99f9fpA42Mk03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|9DC9AFAD-CB63-46BC-B8E1-229F5EA64E6E@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <5278275C.50206@gont.com.ar> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311050028410.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se> <52783535.9030200@si6networks.com> <20131105001243.53E28985D0D@rock.dv.isc.org> <527839C6.3000805@viagenie.ca> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D98318148100@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <001F10BA-F1D4-4AFA-BC0B-E574739782FA@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <F4AB804C-2C8E-40EF-ACE9-0A901E4F5122@employees.org> <EMEW3|143bd43fa5d2a4711db6534159f9ff03pA41VQ03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|001F10BA-F1D4-4AFA-BC0B-E574739782FA@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <CAFU7BASp6fBg4i3P9Ld6PNnuC8N0Syovj3zJebX8hBRZNFVJKQ@mail.gmail.com> <9DC9AFAD-CB63-46BC-B8E1-229F5EA64E6E@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=pA42Mk095963509300; tid=pA42Mk0959635093bR; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=3:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: rA52Mks1023048
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Some stats on IPv6 fragments and EH filtering on the Internet
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 02:23:00 -0000

On 5 Nov 2013, at 02:11, Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:31 AM, Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> does the above results show the _network_ dropping fragments, or the end host or a system closely associated with the end host dropping extension headers?
>> 
>> For mine, the test was simply whether the HTTP request solicited a response.
> 
> It could be verified by checking the hop limit from the your machine
> to the server you are testing and then vary the hop limits of probe
> packets - so you can see when you stop receiving 'time exceeded’.

Modifying traceroute itself to slip in some extension headers might be useful?  Much as you can check DSCP rewrites, for example.

Tim