Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sat, 19 September 2020 07:18 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 8251B3A0F84 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 00:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 Lq9-miNZlqY6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 00:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from skynet.si6networks.com (unknown [83.247.7.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D75893A0F83 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 00:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:1088:8aa:4c05:95c5:912] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:1088:8aa:4c05:95c5:912]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by skynet.si6networks.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 848021F4F; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 04:18:39 -0300 (-03)
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
References: <d8d59ce07f7f4031a545ff6e24fdbb88@huawei.com> <a6ed89a8-c12e-b8d2-c720-5cc02e127a68@si6networks.com> <FCBD1043-A0B2-435A-9AB9-0FCE3566C769@employees.org> <4573db3f-ac8d-3103-1979-e803ae40f117@si6networks.com> <DEB1318E-0E5B-4093-A691-8E1FD35B9F50@strayalpha.com> <A197EF3A-1E1E-40F1-BB50-68469E3C8E63@delong.com> <44481FC7-6E3F-4D5A-A5A9-A338C1836EA1@strayalpha.com> <2ad804a2-e714-6256-3afa-4d4a92fd6d3c@si6networks.com> <9c026e30-149b-172f-0953-456fb2d1e715@gmail.com> <AM7PR07MB6248A43FCBBB5D34AA2DA9AAA0230@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <7bc1ea18-01c5-54f7-a65d-a53722a4d3c9@si6networks.com> <AM7PR07MB624842F364784EF3AC5B0647A0200@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <591f5a76-b375-7391-ad4b-bf14ad215536@si6networks.com> <AM7PR07MB6248051BB6A4DCCD8545C730A0200@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <e66b4848-634d-0905-6bc4-7cd76dd62ea8@si6networks.com> <CABNhwV2zG0-71gMU615uD8m5WCvWXNwNNwguV8DvAN5AX_UEkw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <b697ce45-3c95-f423-ffb7-34f5976496d9@si6networks.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2020 04:18:14 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV2zG0-71gMU615uD8m5WCvWXNwNNwguV8DvAN5AX_UEkw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/_cooSGR4Y3aPftXz35Wawej85ys>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 19 Sep 2020 07:18:55 -0000

Hello, Gyan,

On 19/9/20 01:06, Gyan Mishra wrote:
> 
> Hi Fernando
> 
> In this draft can we talk add point about the catch 22 situation 
> described in RFC 7045 excerpt below bottom of introduction:
> 
> I think this issue is critical to the overall issue with processing of 
> EHs and operators filtering EHs in some cases unnecessarily.

What, specifically, would you like us to say about it?

Note: RFC6564 has not (and will not) improve the situation in this 
respect. Since EHs share the same namespece as "upper layer protocols", 
then, in order for a middlebox to know it can parse a header as in the 
RFC6564 format, it has to now that the corresponding "protocol number" 
identifies an EH (as opposed to an upper layer protocol).

RFC6564 would have been useful only if we had closed the door to the 
definition of new EHs with a new "protocol number", and had specified 
that any new EHs would share the same protocol number ("XX", to have 
been assigned by IANA at the time RFC6564 was published).

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492