IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Tue, 05 November 2013 15:31 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.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 0122D11E80E6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 07:31:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 zobs5YrxxTL5 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 07:31:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9CDD11E81A3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 07:31:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-bc20.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-bc20.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.188.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA5FV4cX007791 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 5 Nov 2013 15:31:05 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FAB9C83A-C300-494D-8D64-519F7098E42F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <52790CE7.6010506@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 07:31:03 -0800
Message-Id: <49A0D108-95E4-4AB2-8C98-6B87DE706D98@bogus.com>
References: <5278275C.50206@gont.com.ar> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311050028410.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se> <52783535.9030200@si6networks.com> <20131105001243.53E28985D0D@rock.dv.isc.org> <527839C6.3000805@viagenie.ca> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D98318148100@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <F4AB804C-2C8E-40EF-ACE9-0A901E4F5122@employees.org> <52784DD1.7020106@gont.com.ar> <BD308F06-C9E2-42EB-9D23-CFD3432F1A1D@employees.org> <52785F34.6020606@si6networks.com> <A9F99218-AB14-45AA-B29D-7E1D7E4B93FC@employees.org> <5278E639.3040606@inex.ie> <C4864CA1-C8F4-45D6-944A-0E8BA073D4A7@employees.org> <5278E986.9050409@inex.ie> <C1BEE5D4-FDC2-4E4B-947D-CEC9E4F05E5D@employees.org> <5278EDAB.5030601@inex.ie> <52790CE7.6010506@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Tue, 05 Nov 2013 15:31:07 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
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 15:31:26 -0000

On Nov 5, 2013, at 7:21 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 06/11/2013 02:07, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> On 05/11/2013 12:54, Ole Troan wrote:
>>> why don't you filter out packets on the edge destined to your router's addresses?
>>> instead of what's effectively breaking IPv6 service across the network.
>> 
>> you can use infrastructure acls if they are handled carefully and don't
>> depend on implicit "deny any any" (which has special handling for the
>> "platform ipv6 acl fragment hardware").  But in order to implement this you
>> need to protect every single link network connected to your PFC3s.  If your
>> addressing plan is designed with this in mind, it's feasible.  If you have
>> a very large network or if you've not handled your link address assignments
>> very carefully, it's often not practical because it means dynamically
>> maintaining huge access lists on every single device on the network.
> 
> I think Homer Simpson has a word for this situation.
> 
> We *really* aren't going to deprecate fragmentation because of one
> model of broken kit, are we?

Do you think there’s one model of broken kit?

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email