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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 5/19/2015 11:14 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On May 19, 2015, at 12:15 AM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> * The size of IPv4 options is very limited (well under 128 bytes)
>>
>> * IYou only need to look at the IHL of the IPv4 packet to be able to
>> jump to the layer-4 protocol header. -- there's no such a thing in IPv6.
> 
> I think it's generally agreed that we can expect devices to be somewhat limited as to how far into the packet they can peek on the fast path, and that we may need to tolerate a certain degree of non-compliance in such devices until Moore's law fixes the problem, or people become willing to pay more for it (which they probably won't absent some significant application).
> 
> Maybe we should have an extension header that says where the transport header is... ;)

I briefly considered this at various times when this thread keeps
reappearing, but it would need to be another "HBH" header because it
needs to be examined and/or modified at any hop that modifies any other
extension header.

IPv4 knows where the transport header is but has limited option space
and can't natively support "shim" protocol layers inbetween IP and TCP
BUT it can find the transport header with localized info.

IPv6 makes the opposite trade-off.

Joe