IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] WG Doc? draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sat, 12 March 2016 19:27 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 264F012D7EE for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 11:27:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 0JSndqllsJDA for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 11:27:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D8C512D7DC for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 11:27:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.1.0.55] (dslb-094-217-017-121.094.217.pools.vodafone-ip.de [94.217.17.121]) (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 E36DF80168; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 20:27:05 +0100 (CET)
To: otroan@employees.org, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <A277BE71-BD70-4AFE-97DA-F224D7DBBCB8@cisco.com> <BDA56C2D-788D-421C-B44A-1A29578F0F78@employees.org> <56E318C7.5020200@gmail.com> <F57DFD38-FC99-45AE-B41D-51B0565148B1@employees.org>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <56E46D83.5070601@si6networks.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 16:26:59 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F57DFD38-FC99-45AE-B41D-51B0565148B1@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/gopNGaCYOjXaLuQ-aPbsIb07Xow>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] WG Doc? draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 12 Mar 2016 19:27:09 -0000

On 03/12/2016 01:53 PM, otroan@employees.org wrote:

> Enforcing a cap on the extension header chain isn't going to make the
> slightest difference. Vendors can build whatever you like, but are
> you willing to pay the price? Especially given that real, deployed
> applications aren't using EHs.

If that's your take, then I guess you should be arguing for deprecation.
Because the "EH" feature requires code, and that code has been the
source of trouble in a number of places (including evasion of security
controls, DoS vectors, and others).

I should note, though, that IPsec uses EHs...

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email