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

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Tue, 05 November 2013 02:57 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
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 B752921E83B6; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:57:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.231
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.232, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, 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 82FkOKjCPSu6; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:57:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com [130.76.32.231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE8E021E80F1; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:57:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id rA52va3F032405; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:57:36 -0800
Received: from XCH-NWHT-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.114]) by blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id rA52vZeA032402 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:57:35 -0800
Received: from XCH-BLV-401.nw.nos.boeing.com (130.247.25.18) by XCH-NWHT-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (130.247.25.114) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.327.1; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:57:35 -0800
Received: from XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.4.85]) by XCH-BLV-401.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.1.67]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:57:34 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Some stats on IPv6 fragments and EH filtering on the Internet
Thread-Index: AQHO2dIRumLVu/JCNU+q9AN/9oGPZJoV8OYw
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 02:57:34 +0000
Message-ID: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D98318148482@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <AA811674-7409-437A-B181-B226F81C381A@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <5278275C.50206@gont.com.ar> <EMEW3|dedd4c8528278c035fade0cbf2a8cb74pA3NRi03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|AA811674-7409-437A-B181-B226F81C381A@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <CAPfnYRgTio5ajooEBnSU7C03ObGrPaezjjKOYs2u=msMjR0C2w@mail.gmail.com> <52785BC9.3040705@si6networks.com> <2E537845-6042-4572-B00E-A9197EFD9DF8@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|5a1af892adc31a7815ac986c570959bepA42q303tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|2E537845-6042-4572-B00E-A9197EFD9DF8@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|5a1af892adc31a7815ac986c570959bepA42q303tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|2E537845-6042-4572-B00E-A9197EFD9DF8@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.247.104.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Pedro Torres <torres@pop-pr.rnp.br>
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 02:57:45 -0000

Hi Tim and Fernando,

> > This is just data that is useful and should keep in mind when developing
> > protocols and/or extensions.

We already have at least one protocol that requires IPv6 fragmentation
(RFC2473) and I'm sure there are others.

> Indeed, or when writing docs like the one Ron is authoring on extension header handling.

Or SEAL also. But, SEAL simply takes the existing precedent set by RFC2473.

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> Tim
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops