Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 extension headers? (Episode 1000 and counting) (Linux DoS)

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Mon, 22 May 2023 19:28 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 93AFBC14CF18; Mon, 22 May 2023 12:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8QYlxX7yumau; Mon, 22 May 2023 12:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5845C14CE47; Mon, 22 May 2023 12:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.89.9.171] (unknown [91.90.189.54]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B78552803CC; Mon, 22 May 2023 16:28:42 -0300 (-03)
Message-ID: <4d2abda3-19a1-4afb-85f6-95ddb9fc9043@gont.com.ar>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 21:28:41 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: David Farmer <farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>, opsec@ietf.org
References: <11087a11-476c-5fb8-2ede-e1b3b6e95e48@si6networks.com> <CALx6S343f_FPXVxuZuXB4j=nY-SuTEYrnxb3O5OQ3fv5uPwT8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau1pTVr6ak9rc9x7irg+aLhq0N8_WOyySqx5Syt74HMX=g@mail.gmail.com> <a087b963-1e12-66bf-b93e-5190ce09914b@si6networks.com> <CALx6S349nNA8L5+_1hrbWayqp8GfTYypWy_SP57c_Xxams=csg@mail.gmail.com> <51a066b3-4b4c-d573-ffbe-d6b44a4f193f@gont.com.ar> <a411a1b0-c521-c456-3d44-d99a1cc0975b@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau3MLvK2A_Rt_TnXqZY-zOR12NhF-16tKDv4E4s9qR1D_Q@mail.gmail.com> <2341.1684770818@localhost> <CAN-Dau04XOL0Afyrb-msE5OHX2c9KFuYt2N5san9mqq8k1BW3w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau04XOL0Afyrb-msE5OHX2c9KFuYt2N5san9mqq8k1BW3w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/vOPQjHVMv_1W351khXsFY9wId6E>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 extension headers? (Episode 1000 and counting) (Linux DoS)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 22 May 2023 19:28:54 -0000

Hi, David,

On 22/5/23 18:05, David Farmer wrote:
[...]
> 
>     I think that many of us are still reeling from default configuration of
>     certain "firewalls" that banks seemed like, which dropped packets
>     containing
>     ECN, and TCP options, and made it very very difficult to deploy new
>     things.
>     Even when at the IETF standards level... (so "innovation with
>     permission")
> 
> 
> So, I think we need "permissionless innovation" at the Internet level. 
> Nevertheless, that doesn't mean "innovation with permission" isn't 
> appropriate in some or even many situations. For example, in a situation 
> involving public safety, like a nuclear reactor or a missile control 
> system. We can all agree that "permissionless innovation" isn't 
> necessarily appropriate in situations like these.

For the Security guy, the "nuclear reactor" is the infrastructure that, 
if compromised or DoS, causes clients to complain, money to be lost, and 
eventually, staff to be fired.

Yes, I love to play with EHs.... in a lab. :-)

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar
PGP Fingerprint: 7F7F 686D 8AC9 3319 EEAD C1C8 D1D5 4B94 E301 6F01