Nick,
> neither really have use cases
I think a use cases document is a great idea! Although, IMHO one of the points of extension headers is that they can be used to extend the protocol for purposes which we cannot think of today!
Thanks,
Nalini Elkins
CEO and Founder
Inside Products, Inc.
www.insidethestack.com
(831) 659-8360
On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 07:49:50 AM PDT, Nick Buraglio <[email protected]> wrote:
Is there any document that details the current operational best practices or explains the EH options and use cases in a succinct document? I didn't find one (although I did not look terribly hard). If not, that sounds like an opportunity to work through them and create one, perhaps? Nalani has a deep dive study here https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-elkins-v6ops-eh-deepdive-fw-01.html and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-elkins-v6ops-eh-deepdive-cdn/ but I wasn't able to find a list with some use cases akin to the ND considerations draft here https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations/ RFC7045 has a decent, and RFC2460 explains what they are but neither really have use cases.
nb
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 9:33 AM Tom Herbert <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 7:24 AM Andrew Campling
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I wonder if part of the issue here is that insufficient attention is being given to operational security matters and too much weight is given to privacy in protocol development, irrespective of the security implications (which is of course ultimately detrimental to security anyway)?
Andrew,
There is work being done to address the protocol "bugs" of extension
headers. See 6man-hbh-processing and 6man-eh-limits for instance.
Tom
>
> Andrew
>
>
> From: OPSEC <[email protected]> on behalf of Fernando Gont <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 2:19 pm
> To: David Farmer <[email protected]>; Tom Herbert <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; V6 Ops List <[email protected]>; opsec WG <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [OPSEC] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 extension headers? (Episode 1000 and counting) (Linux DoS)
>
> Hi, David,
>
> On 18/5/23 02:14, David Farmer wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 13:57 Tom Herbert
> > <[email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > Maximum security is rarely the objective, I by no means have maximum
> > security at my home. However, I don’t live in the country where some
> > people still don’t even lock there doors. I live in a a city, I have
> > decent deadbolt locks and I use them.
> >
> [....]
> >
> > So, I’m not really happy with the all or nothing approach the two of you
> > seem to be offering for IPv6 extension headers, is there something in
> > between? If not, then maybe that is what we need to be working towards.
>
> FWIW, I[m not arguing for a blank "block all", but rather "just allow
> the ones you really need" -- which is a no brainer. The list you need
> is, maybe Frag and, say, IPsec at the global level? (from the pov of
> most orgs).
>
> (yeah... HbH and the like are mostly fine for the local link (e.g. MLD).
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: [email protected]
> PGP Fingerprint: F242 FF0E A804 AF81 EB10 2F07 7CA1 321D 663B B494
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSEC mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.