Re: Comments on multi6dt documents
Erik Nordmark <[email protected]> Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:52:27 -0800
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.multi6 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Pekka Savola wrote:
> True .. but firewalls of today don't even have a _chance_ of skipping
> over the extension header, even if they, or their administrators would
> want that (well, if the extension header is in TLV format, maybe then,
> because some firewalls assume the next ext headers are in TLV).
> Destination options at least allow that possibility.
If any future extension headers follow the canonical format:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Header | Hdr Ext Len | ....
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
then one can build firewalls that are liberal in what they accept.
But I still think this is moot because firewalls by nature will be
conservative in what they accept.
> Right out, I can't think of anything else than ICMP and multicast (which
> you already mentioned), but that doesn't of course mean those kind of
> protocols might not exist. Therefore I think it would make sense to put
> this sufficiently clearly in the document that people need to keep in
> mind that there may be some protocols which might call for special
> handling.
ok, I'll add some words.
>> Why do you wish to confuse things by calling it an ALG? It is a local
>> matter for the implementation how it demuxes ICMP errors. ALGs and
>> NATs make people think of middleboxes which perform transformations
>> which can not be reversed.
>
>
> Sorry, I was just trying to figure out a term which says, "requires the
> host's shim layer and possibly some weirder middleboxes (like stateful
> firewalls, when they want to figure whether to pass this error in or
> not) have knowledge of applications' semantics [and if there are new
> such applications, requiring that this application knowledge to be
> updated], to be able to mangle the addresses inside the payload correctly."
It isn't "applications" - it is what I'd call "IP signaling protocols"
or something like it; protocols which are not end-to-end but involve the
routers along the path. ICMP errors from the routers, or RSVP signaling
is what we currently have as examples. NSIS falls here as well.
Erik