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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sat, 12 March 2016 19:22 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 06F5B12D5B5 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 11:22:07 -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 n2m33Bwn0GDv for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 11:22:04 -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 6DF4712D545 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 11:22:04 -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 33E0C8024B; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 20:22:01 +0100 (CET)
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>, "otroan@employees.org" <otroan@employees.org>
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> <988AECA3-61E1-4B45-AC39-A9EFF086854A@cisco.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <56E46C52.5040505@si6networks.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 16:21:54 -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: <988AECA3-61E1-4B45-AC39-A9EFF086854A@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/nWNE3uRfnPlKn26727vuskVHYXg>
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 19:22:07 -0000

On 03/12/2016 04:07 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 12, 2016, at 8:53 AM, otroan@employees.org wrote:
>> 
>> Given that EHs are rarely used
> 
> One specific point that worries me in this discuss is the
> indiscriminate reference to extension headers. One of the is the
> Security Header; I use the IPv4 variant of that (I believe along with
> UDP) when I use AnyConnect or Cisco CVO, which is to say "pretty much
> invariably". If the call is to deprecate extension headers, do we
> deprecate IPsec? What other instance of "baby vs bathwater" are
> there?

I don't think anyone is calling to deprecate EHs... quite the opposite:
the idea is to try to make them deployable.

Regarding IPsec EHs, they are filtered in a similar ways as other EHs.
Hence it does make sense to reference the whole bunch as "extension
headers".

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