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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Thu, 07 November 2013 14:05 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8830111E8269; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 06:05:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.343, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a+Qs5yzRNMK8; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 06:05:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52BBC11E8265; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 06:05:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 907929C; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 15:05:00 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89F4A9A; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 15:05:00 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 15:05:00 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <527B0098.6080800@gont.com.ar>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311071502390.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <5278275C.50206@gont.com.ar> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311050028410.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se> <52783535.9030200@si6networks.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311050105440.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se> <527B0098.6080800@gont.com.ar>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Some stats on IPv6 fragments and EH filtering on the Internet
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 14:05:07 -0000

On Wed, 6 Nov 2013, Fernando Gont wrote:

>> If one deploys a 6500/7600/SUP720 and configures IPv6 on it today, it'll
>> slow-path every IPv6 packet with a fragmentation header. Default behaviour.
>
> But slow path != drop.

Since this platform does few megabits/s in slowpath, it's pretty close. 
Most reasonable people will deploy CoPP here and set low policer limits 
for this kind of traffic.

> Quickly skimming through the discussion it looks like a decision is made 
> to drop -- albeit for reasonable reasons. Am I missing something?

I'm sure there are some who set it to drop, and some set it to forward 
(both for good reasons), and some don't know and leave the default.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se