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

Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Mon, 18 November 2013 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
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 0D7D11AE5C6; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:50:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 MDbfUSPjdS8b; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:50:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tx2outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (tx2ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com [65.55.88.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E0A31AE5C4; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:50:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail144-tx2-R.bigfish.com (10.9.14.250) by TX2EHSOBE011.bigfish.com (10.9.40.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:50:45 +0000
Received: from mail144-tx2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail144-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98B4B1C00CC; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:50:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -26
X-BigFish: VPS-26(zz62a3I9371I542I1432I4015Izz1f42h2148h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h2146h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1de098h1033IL17326ah8275bh8275dh1de097h186068h5eeeKz2fh109h2a8h839h944hd24hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah224fh1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1de9h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1fe8h1ff5h2216h9a9j1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail144-tx2: domain of juniper.net designates 157.56.240.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.101; envelope-from=rbonica@juniper.net; helo=BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(243025003)(252514010)(51704005)(13464003)(199002)(189002)(377454003)(164054003)(19580395003)(81342001)(15975445006)(81686001)(85306002)(74502001)(80022001)(63696002)(15202345003)(80976001)(47446002)(83322001)(65816001)(31966008)(74662001)(87936001)(19580405001)(2656002)(69226001)(76786001)(74316001)(81816001)(56776001)(74706001)(50986001)(76796001)(49866001)(47736001)(33646001)(51856001)(53806001)(54356001)(76576001)(77982001)(79102001)(54316002)(76482001)(81542001)(66066001)(83072001)(47976001)(4396001)(59766001)(46102001)(77096001)(56816003)(74876001)(87266001)(74366001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR05MB443; H:CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:66.129.241.15; FPR:; RD:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Received: from mail144-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail144-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 1384811443373733_8803; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:50:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TX2EHSMHS040.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.235]) by mail144-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 531203A0052; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:50:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by TX2EHSMHS040.bigfish.com (10.9.99.140) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:50:43 +0000
Received: from CO1PR05MB443.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.152) by BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.100.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.383.1; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:50:42 +0000
Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.146) by CO1PR05MB443.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.785.10; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:50:40 +0000
Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.67]) by CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.69]) with mapi id 15.00.0785.001; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:50:39 +0000
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Some stats on IPv6 fragments and EH filtering on the Internet
Thread-Index: AQHO2bHohYR0s3IRQE+Bh6lCddmviporl0bw
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:50:39 +0000
Message-ID: <5a9e4532c4e14bddbd9d824133820157@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <5278275C.50206@gont.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <5278275C.50206@gont.com.ar>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.15]
x-forefront-prvs: 00342DD5BC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Some stats on IPv6 fragments and EH filtering on the Internet
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: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:50:57 -0000

Folks,

Fernando presents two studies in <http://www.iepg.org/2013-11-ietf88/fgont-iepg-ietf88-ipv6-frag-and-eh.pdf>. The second study is more interesting to me, because duplicate addresses are removed.

The following are a few questions regarding Fernando's second study:

1) Fernando observes that 41% of sites discard fragmented packets. However, in a similar study (http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/downloads/publications/pmtu-black-holes-msc-thesis.pdf) only 10% of sites discarded fragmented packets. I wonder why the two studies yield such divergent results.

2) Fernando observes that 44% of sites discard packets containing an 8 byte destination header, while 89% of sites discard packet containing 1 kilobyte of extension headers. Because the first number (44%) is so high, can I conclude that the second (89%) is insignificant.

Could it be that extension header length is a non-issue, because so many sites filter packets containing extension headers, regardless of their length?

                                                          Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Fernando Gont
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 6:02 PM
> To: 6man@ietf.org; IPv6 Operations
> Subject: Some stats on IPv6 fragments and EH filtering on the Internet
> 
> Folks,
> 
> I did a presentation on the topic at the IEPG meeting earlier this
> week.
> It provides some concrete data regarding IPv6 fragmentation and
> Extension Header filtering on the Internet.
> 
> The slideware is available at:
> <http://www.iepg.org/2013-11-ietf88/fgont-iepg-ietf88-ipv6-frag-and-
> eh.pdf>
> 
> Certainly there's *much* more work to be done in this area, but I
> thought that this could be good food sfor some of the discussions that
> we were having on the topic.
> 
> Thanks,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint:
> 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>