IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 16 March 2016 18:10 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 5DA7612D616 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 11:10:02 -0700 (PDT)
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 mjxiM1uXwXXb for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 11:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
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 2F6E012D63E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 11:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.12.111] (HSI-KBW-46-237-222-202.hsi.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de [46.237.222.202]) (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 7DA8780909; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:09:58 +0100 (CET)
To: otroan@employees.org, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
References: <A277BE71-BD70-4AFE-97DA-F224D7DBBCB8@cisco.com> <1BB37194-0F5B-45C1-9DFA-87B1C28264D2@employees.org> <CALx6S37vfDcchTa5Tch+BS8rQAGgPP_EeYbVz19WBchSHTqExg@mail.gmail.com> <56E60B0D.6070600@gmail.com> <CALx6S36_Vi4XZfPvCNY42zpbXy9dXeXzwE8KedxYDhne371HHA@mail.gmail.com> <56E6326B.2090303@gmail.com> <CALx6S353ognNHWnjbNSdW5hb_e6Hv3LqLa_r+e9yEW4F=cjH=A@mail.gmail.com> <56E6FC18.1060304@foobar.org> <CALx6S35pcSj_LLnDWJ68KwSYiHeu6FwrXTaR4N2xE6aY7MRO1A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iLbqEvsw0x4dDcA3Zy3SXKUROcQuy5nSynsL9Xi+xrZLg@mail.gmail.com> <566C93D0-62FF-4700-BC05-7F9AF12AF1BD@employees.org> <56E892B8.9030902@foobar.org> <394925FE-FAB1-4FFC-B1CF-4F64CC58F613@employees.org> <56E94275.20700@foobar.org> <3AE1DE20-D735-4262-A3FB-7C01F30BAFA2@employees.org> <56E96F74.7000206@foobar.org> <CALx6S37zP4UvCtBJsvnPN6OmDB0OQDMfRrJNy1XF0t4COStUjQ@mail.gmail.com> <56E98086.504 0209@foobar.org> <EE17974D-EDA4-4732-B29E-B2B3BC36DB86@employees.org>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <56E9A16B.4030605@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:09:47 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <EE17974D-EDA4-4732-B29E-B2B3BC36DB86@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/v-ty2lfe7CX72OSh2byy_oBGRPk>
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: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 18:10:02 -0000

Hi, Ole,

On 03/16/2016 02:38 PM, otroan@employees.org wrote:
> Nick,
> 
>>> Processing an unbounded chain of EHs is probably a problem for anyone
>>> at this point.
>>
>> exactly, which is what this draft is attempting to document.
> 
> making processing of extension headers hard was considered by Steve to be a feature.

So what?

That "feature" makes them impossible to deploy.



> that's well known. it just isn't clear to me what you are trying to achieve with this draft?
> on one hand it alludes to why L4 information might be required in the network, on the other it says why routers aren't able to process the EH chain...

We go back to square one all the time.

Please let me summarize:

1) Packets with EHs are drpped because middleboxes and routers, in
practice, need to obtain layer-4 information

2) Why do they need such layer-4 information? -- Because of the reasons
stated in our I-D.

Everytime this topic comes up, you argue that processing layer-4
information is not necessary, or ask why ops people do that.

This document answers that question, so that this gets clarified, and we
can move on to improve the current state of affairs.

Otherwise, we live pretending that EHs are deployable, when they are not.

Looking to the other side, or pretending that the problem doesn't exist
doesn't help to solve problems.

The goal of publishing this document is so that we don't have to rehash
the same discussion every time the topic of EHs come up.
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email