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

sthaug@nethelp.no Wed, 17 June 2015 13:27 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
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 2F0F51AC3D9 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 06:27:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 UPlOzh1PsYZ5 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 06:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 059B91AC3D6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 06:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 31420 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2015 13:27:50 -0000
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (HELO localhost) (195.1.209.33) by bizet.nethelp.no with SMTP; 17 Jun 2015 13:27:50 -0000
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:27:50 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20150617.152750.41635871.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: furry13@gmail.com
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BARNa--MEuOzH5ZsBJ+hY8hCxUH4tVDcSEP95BdkmooLgw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFU7BAR0YeGe7NbYTqNSAcMukGjAz6akWaVcODWVJwpTJKQhWQ@mail.gmail.com> <20150617.140235.74748217.sthaug@nethelp.no> <CAFU7BARNa--MEuOzH5ZsBJ+hY8hCxUH4tVDcSEP95BdkmooLgw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/DozaqCVxliESDyRWoN6Uor4t6Cs>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, ipv6-wg@ripe.net
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: <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: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:27:54 -0000

> So we all agree that 'variable length is OK as long as our hardware
> can look deep enough'? And what people are complaining about is exact
> number? Which we do not know yet for IPv6 EHs?

Agreed, variable length *by itself* is not the problem.

I see *large* variable length headers, in combination with complex
parsing rules, as the problem.

Steinar Haug, AS 2116