Re: [v6ops] Limiting the size of the IPv6 header chain (draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain)

["cb.list6" <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 10, 2013 7:23 PM, "Fernando Gont" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> We're currently editing the aforementioned I-D. So far, the I-D just
> required that the entire IPv6 header chain be present in the first
fragment.
>
> Based on recent/ongoing discussions on the 6man and v6ops lists, there
> seems to be quite a few folks pushing the idea of limiting the size f
> the IPv6 header chain to some value (typically in the order of a few
> hundred bytes).
>
> An earlier version of draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain limited the
> header chain to 1280 bytes, but this requirement was later removed.
>
> However, since then a number of folks have produced real world data
> which indicates that packets "won't make it to the destination node" if
> the header chain is larger than a few hundred bytes, and I believe that,
> overall, our understanding of the problem and situation has increased
> since then.
>
> My question to th wg is:
>
> 1) Do we want to limit the size of the IPv6 header chain?
>
> 2) If so, which limit should we pick?
>

It's not the size, it is how you use it.

I would suggest "common types" be permitted (tcp, udp, sctp, icmpv6, frag,
esp, ah) while anything else must be behind an esp. This ensures all
parties agree that further arbitrary headers will only be processed by the
concenting end systems.

CB
> Thanks!
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: [e-mail]
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------