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

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 16 June 2015 20:13 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 836101B2F23 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 KlZ9XqxqJx4o for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90A241B2F22 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.160.252] (pen.isi.edu [128.9.160.252]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5GKBuLl002070 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5580830A.7010803@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:11:54 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>, Enno Rey <erey@ernw.de>
References: <20150515105406.GA3028@ernw.de> <87siav2m6p.fsf@stepladder-it.com> <F1D4404E5E6C614EB9D3083F4D15A7E7C4A92C@hex02> <D17F4C51.4ABB0%evyncke@cisco.com> <20150611165858.GT39827@ernw.de> <CAFU7BAR7m0sZsU9Rc=fUao32zaRE1=9XMBWjiL0AukehdpVpWQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BAR7m0sZsU9Rc=fUao32zaRE1=9XMBWjiL0AukehdpVpWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MailScanner-ID: t5GKBuLl002070
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/oL2jDZMfc4Ip_jE3vecI6Ex59qk>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "ipv6-wg@ripe.net IPv6" <ipv6-wg@ripe.net>
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: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 20:13:13 -0000


On 6/16/2015 12:02 PM, Jen Linkova wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Enno Rey <erey@ernw.de> wrote:
>> the problem here is the definition of "normal IP packet" as of RFC2460.
> 
> The problem here is what one might mean by "normal" (from Oxford dictionary):
> 1)  conforming to a standard;
> 2) usual, typical, or expected;

That's the trouble with extensions. You can't expect them until they're
developed AND deployed, so initially they're never "expected" in terms
of actual traffic.

Except that we SHOULD expect *everything* that's in a spec.

Joe