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

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Thu, 07 November 2013 04:32 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando@gont.com.ar>
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 D8FEF11E81B0; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 20:32:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.237
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.237 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.238, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
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 SebOCook113m; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 20:32:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88A9A11E8158; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 20:32:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-a038.meeting.ietf.org ([31.133.160.56]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <fernando@gont.com.ar>) id 1VeHGp-0006GJ-Mo; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 05:32:39 +0100
Message-ID: <527B0098.6080800@gont.com.ar>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 18:53:12 -0800
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
References: <5278275C.50206@gont.com.ar> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311050028410.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se> <52783535.9030200@si6networks.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311050105440.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311050105440.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 04:32:55 -0000

Hi, Michael,

On 11/04/2013 04:08 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Fernando Gont wrote:
> 
>> Isn't there a v6ops I-D with similar wording?
> 
> I opposed to this wording in there as well.

Then I apologize -- I kind of assumed some sort of intention based on
that I-D. So.. point taken.

That said, the meat is in stats. :-)



> If one deploys a 6500/7600/SUP720 and configures IPv6 on it today, it'll
> slow-path every IPv6 packet with a fragmentation header. Default behaviour.

But slow path != drop.



> I have no idea how much of the behaviour your're seeing is caused by
> this default behaviour, but I'd venture to guess a lot.
> 
>> mm... as far as discussion on a number of forums went, apparently
>> there's intent to do so.
> 
> Oki, I haven't seen these.
> 
>> Data? References?
> 
> http://seclists.org/nanog/2011/Sep/1076

Quickly skimming through the discussion it looks like a decision is made
to drop -- albeit for reasonable reasons. Am I missing something?

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1