Ole,
>>> it might be time that we accept that this was a bad idea. Which deployment status has confirmed.
>> Is it your intent to submit a draft deprecating IPv6 Extension Headers?
> Do you want me to?
> A couple of them seem to have found some use within limited domains. Those problems could likely have
> been solved also with encapsulation and as it turns out the limited domains end up with additional
> encapsulation too. Encapsulation is in my a view a better way to reason about these extensions than EHs.
> If nothing else they have served as a way to extend the ip protocol name space.
No, it just seemed to be the logical extension of your thinking. Please correct me if I have misunderstood.
I believe that EHs can provide a great deal of useful functionality and will do so even more in the future. We, ourselves, are working with a team in India to investigate DNS resiliency using our PDM Destination Options Extension Header.
I believe that we need to find out exactly what the situation is as far as EH's. If there are bugs in network device code, then we need to fix them. We have found a number already and are working with the relevant vendors.
Once bugs are fixed, then we need to consider carefully what BCP around EHs should be done, taking into account various common topologies as well as devices such as proxies and load balancers. I mention those in particular as what we have found points to those devices in particular as posing problems rather than transit networks.
Of course, our testing to date is absolute lack of transmission rather than lack of transmission based on EH length or type. We felt that was the logical first step.
Thanks,
Nalini Elkins
CEO and Founder
Inside Products, Inc.
www.insidethestack.com
(831) 659-8360
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 09:21:33 AM PDT, Ole Trøan <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Nalini,
>> it might be time that we accept that this was a bad idea. Which deployment status has confirmed.
>
> Is it your intent to submit a draft deprecating IPv6 Extension Headers?
Do you want me to?
A couple of them seem to have found some use within limited domains. Those problems could likely have been solved also with encapsulation and as it turns out the limited domains end up with additional encapsulation too. Encapsulation is in my a view a better way to reason about these extensions than EHs.
If nothing else they have served as a way to extend the ip protocol name space.
O.
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
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.