Re: [v6ops] [ipv6-wg] Extension Headers / Impact on Security Devices

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Wed, 17 June 2015 12:19 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 C54FD1A8ACB for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 05:19:11 -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
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 Zek6h1szJhNo for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 05:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB3C01A8ACA for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 05:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: <v6ops@ietf.org>
Received: from vpn-248.int.inex.ie (vpn-248.int.inex.ie [193.242.111.248]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t5HCJ6KV005912 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:19:07 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <20150515105406.GA3028@ernw.de> <87siav2m6p.fsf@stepladder-it.com> <F1D4404E5E6C614EB9D3083F4D15A7E7C4A92C@hex02> <20150517191841.GA26929@ernw.de> <C07DF957-9A2D-4962-ABAA-DE61F5C5D533@cisco.com> <CAFU7BAR0YeGe7NbYTqNSAcMukGjAz6akWaVcODWVJwpTJKQhWQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <558165C4.30904@foobar.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:19:16 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BAR0YeGe7NbYTqNSAcMukGjAz6akWaVcODWVJwpTJKQhWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/yR6SBD3z0Ol8yo-MEsEeuVG2_1M>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [ipv6-wg] 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: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 12:19:11 -0000

On 17/06/2015 11:01, Jen Linkova wrote:
> I'd like to point out that the problem is not specific to IPv6 at all.
> How deep is MPLS label stack? Where are TCP flags or port number in
> the packet (so I can match 'tcp established' or 'tcp 443')? oops, we
> don't know....it depends...so some linecards do not copy enough data,
> some (newer ones) do.

bear in mind that each entry in the mpls label stack will be 4 octets,
which gives.  An EH could be orders of magnitude larger.

Nick