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

sthaug@nethelp.no Tue, 05 November 2013 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
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 3C65811E8231 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 07:57:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 LfAqNm8iEawz for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 07:57:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 755C921E80CE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 07:57:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 21699 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2013 15:57:17 -0000
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (HELO localhost) (195.1.209.33) by bizet.nethelp.no with SMTP; 5 Nov 2013 15:57:17 -0000
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 16:57:17 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20131105.165717.74734321.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: nick@inex.ie
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <5279109F.80306@inex.ie>
References: <5278EDAB.5030601@inex.ie> <52790CE7.6010506@gmail.com> <5279109F.80306@inex.ie>
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
Cc: fgont@si6networks.com, v6ops@ietf.org, fernando@gont.com.ar
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: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 15:57:41 -0000

> > We *really* aren't going to deprecate fragmentation because of one
> > model of broken kit, are we?
> 
> flicking the question around, how much will it cost operators to upgrade
> these boxes, and are they prepared to make this investment in order to fix
> a problem which for the most part has a minimal impact on their networks
> because 50% of web sites don't accept fragments anyway.

Speaking only for myself and the network I know best: I have some
boxes that cannot inspect "sufficiently far" into the IPv6 packet.
These boxes will eventually be replaced as part of normal network
buildout/renewal. There's no way I'm going to ask management for
funding to replace these boxes *just* because they are suboptimal
for IPv6.

> These devices are ubiquitous on the internet.  The IETF should ignore them
> at their peril.  As Joel says, they're not the only box with problems, but
> they are one of the problem contributors in the core.

Agreed.

Steinar Haug, AS 2116