Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - implications from new development for EHs

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 30 July 2020 02:33 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 2F03F3A0BC1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 19:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 dOQ49rPqz3_o for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 19:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E92AB3A0B89 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 19:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:1f7:61d1:782c:89f4:1370] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:1f7:61d1:782c:89f4:1370]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 19B9C280956; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 02:33:25 +0000 (UTC)
To: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <d8d59ce07f7f4031a545ff6e24fdbb88@huawei.com> <20200729084351.GG2485@Space.Net> <32BAEAEA-7352-4BAE-ADA8-FDA2395D5732@employees.org> <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>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <2ad804a2-e714-6256-3afa-4d4a92fd6d3c@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 23:25:37 -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: <44481FC7-6E3F-4D5A-A5A9-A338C1836EA1@strayalpha.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/aCtG_791aJPd97zVpYEBfJPQyDA>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - implications from new development for EHs
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: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 02:33:34 -0000

Hello, Joe,

On 29/7/20 17:16, Joseph Touch wrote:
[...]
>>> If we are merely documenting what happens to be implemented, we cease to be a standards body and become merely reporters.
>>
>> If we avoid any introspection or consideration of operational reality, the cease to be a relevant standards body and become an ivory tower.\
> 
> That’s why I said “merely”. Doing both and appreciating the balance is fine - the point is that “what is implemented/able TODAY” is NOT the only consideration.

FWIW, I don't think we should limit ourselves to documenting the 
problem.Indeed, documenting the problem can certainly be a starting 
point to consider possible ways to mitigate it.

For a long time, the status quo was assuming that EHs work. More 
recently, thanks to a number of efforts (Geoff's measurements, what we 
did in RFC7872, and others), there has been increased awareness about 
the packet drops.

I would expect that a common understanding that there are underlying 
issues that lead to the packet drops (and it's not just folks playing 
with "firewall" rules at random) can serve as a starting point to 
consider what can be done to make things better, closing the gap (to the 
extent that is possible) between what the IETF says IPv6 is, and the 
operational reality of it.

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