Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv 6 extension headers? (Episode 1000 and counting) ( Linux DoS)
Fernando Gont <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.opsec,gmane.ietf.v6ops,gmane.ietf.ipv6 |
|---|---|
| Organization | SI6 Networks |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, Haisheng Yu, On 26/5/23 06:14, Haisheng Yu (Johnson) wrote: [....] > > The essence of the extension header issue is determined by the > competition between operators and equipment vendors.For most internet > users, they rely on the default configurations provided by the operators > or equipment vendors. Operators always want devices from vendors that > offer powerful features (e.g., in SRv6, equipment vendors aim to support > as many layers of Segment Routing lists as possible). However, during > actual deployment, only a portion of these features is used due to > security concerns. Equipment vendors are motivated to innovate as they > seek to outperform their competitors and gain profits in the market. > > The extension headers in IPv6 provide a significant advantage beyond the > address space of IPv4, enabling flexible and programmable network > transmissions. Looking at the current applications of IPv6 extension > headers, notable achievements have been made (such as SRv6). Perhaps > it's time to consider reducing restrictions on extension headers and > allow for more innovation and application. I'm super fine with folks that have a use for EHs, to use them. -- And I agree that for vendors it's an interesting source fo revenue. That said, I'm not that fine if invited to a party where, if anything, I will only pay the bills. So, I block everything that I don't use. e.g., I have no use for EHs in any of my servers, except the pentesting boxes that I use to send weird packets to others. Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: F242 FF0E A804 AF81 EB10 2F07 7CA1 321D 663B B494