Re: [v6ops] Extension Headers / Impact on Security Devices

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 16 May 2015 23:16 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 320031A8820 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 May 2015 16:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 f_hdWvloPvmh for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 May 2015 16:16:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x242.google.com (mail-pa0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07A661A1B13 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 May 2015 16:16:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pablj1 with SMTP id lj1so22640879pab.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 May 2015 16:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=9hwdUnWM54EgWiH3TCJHsZtLu6ipqC++Iln9JLUuL9s=; b=bQw/PqUwTfzEkBcXD9mRxNZj2mBcIhpjvX5Cc+SjttwpSAkyAKKgta+l1FbrkURs1n 0Z8armK+Fh/VANRyWp3/BgkFIAZO04MyUFx/dgWZlT0lL5vWZnGaqjeirKxGYANJl0Jb 0jOg6ztwO/xGKmYpsbF4/TPiz+WWloGXICtLUIh9fa87gJ/Oc/G5Ke37+uXati086/oM RyVWBgbyqxgJjJcYPOnhKsQXlHcN/1QkFRN2/j50OKs1IdiFNMmdHj1FHMdnljp9rztZ 07vN1nQFCQ1WjCQ+66Jg3V8TtcZ9oCvOEiJslF1QRz1pccYFcSi2QjtLy4j5EJKmlkeB Dl3g==
X-Received: by 10.66.251.165 with SMTP id zl5mr30811620pac.93.1431818168766; Sat, 16 May 2015 16:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:468a:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:468a:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id za1sm5701655pbb.55.2015.05.16.16.16.05 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 16 May 2015 16:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5557CFB2.2070407@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 11:16:02 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
References: <20150515113728.GH3028@ernw.de> <878002773.794.1431739346723.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <20150516211840.GJ54385@Space.Net>
In-Reply-To: <20150516211840.GJ54385@Space.Net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/hZj9itbvp2N2xO66T09ww5_-8_o>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Extension Headers / Impact on Security Devices
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 16 May 2015 23:16:10 -0000

On 17/05/2015 09:18, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 01:22:26AM +0000, Mark ZZZ Smith wrote:
>> So quickly, how have IPv4 options been handled? 
>> They too can vary the location of the TCP/UDP etc. headers in an IPv4 packet. 
> 
> "Drop packets with IP options".

And, to be clear, that has been a fact of life since before IPv6 was
designed. (If it hadn't, back in early 1994 I would have pushed very
very hard on my own proposal to add address extension options to IPv4.)

  Brian

> 
>> How have the variety and variable number of TCP options been handled? They 
>> too can vary the location of the TCP segment payload.
> 
> But they do not move the location of the TCP port info.
> 
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster
>