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

Tim Chown <> Tue, 05 November 2013 02:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C7111E8272; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:52:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.564
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZurhGXMwkjTH; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:52:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B80DF11E827F; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:52:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rA52q3SV028524; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 02:52:03 GMT
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 rA52q3SV028524
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple;; s=201304; t=1383619923; bh=fBbDbhJZ8FTXy6wHFLxpI8fStRo=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=2/XtgNHWsIxPYfeTYOc7rsGTJyujcqRxBlKjQclADKr1G0HfdzbbQ7p3tYg7B7CbF 7f2mAY5d4Td+mL5rkZwILLK2zM8AyzeOZF+dgxZhoGFArVslf7MbF+O2cFTtXAgIPt S8LnZndd1TaV16toDyn0xtpPnvHRNlnoyJkyhzfE=
Received: from ( [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by ( [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id pA42q30959635222SQ ret-id none; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 02:52:03 +0000
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:370:160:6865:dd3f:9c57:76dd] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rA52ofSY002200 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 5 Nov 2013 02:50:43 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
From: Tim Chown <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 02:50:41 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|5a1af892adc31a7815ac986c570959bepA42q303tjc||>
References: <> <> <EMEW3|dedd4c8528278c035fade0cbf2a8cb74pA3NRi03tjc||> <> <> <>
To: Fernando Gont <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=pA42q3095963522200; tid=pA42q30959635222SQ; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=4:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: rA52q3SV028524
Cc: IPv6 Operations <>, "" <>, Pedro Torres <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Some stats on IPv6 fragments and EH filtering on the Internet
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 02:52:12 -0000

On 5 Nov 2013, at 02:45, Fernando Gont <> wrote:

> Hi, Pedro,
> On 11/04/2013 05:53 PM, Pedro Torres wrote:
>> Tim/Fernando,
>> Wow! I'm scared of these results!
>> (If that was the intention, it worked!)
> The intention certainly wasn't to scare anyone -- for instance, I didn't
> expect these results ot be that bad.
> The goal of this measurements was to get some data regarding on where
> we're standing with respect to IPv6 fragmentation and extension headers.

And to encourage further measurements, which I think Fernando will do via his scripts (which I think are part of his wider set of IPv6 tools) and which a student here will do via use of and/or extending scapy.

We can then get some idea of where the problems exist, and whether, for example, there are ICMPv6 messages returned or the packets are simply being dropped.

> This is just data that is useful and should keep in mind when developing
> protocols and/or extensions.

Indeed, or when writing docs like the one Ron is authoring on extension header handling.