Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 extension headers? (Episode 1000 and counting) (Linux DoS)

Tom Herbert <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.opsec,gmane.ietf.v6ops,gmane.ietf.ipv6
Message-ID <CALx6S36aUxZCEbhEuga111JWwUQUF22mMYOOss-jwKEthAirhQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 2:13 AM Ole Troan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > A well-implemented host will not be troubled by unkown extension headers or options.
> >
> > Indeed. However, not all hosts are well-implemented.
>
> "Not be troubled by” == “drop”?
> I don’t agree that a well-implemented host and application should blindly accept any and all extension headers.

Ole,

Right, that's why RFC8504 and 6man-eh-limits allow hosts to set
various limits on extension headers in packets-- if a host limit is
exceeded then the packet is discarded. 6man-eh-limits also also
intermediate devices to have similar limits and if those limits are
exceeded then any items beyond the limit are forwarded and that is
*not* a reason to discard packets.

> If my application cannot use those extension headers why do you send them to me?
> If they are purely for the use in the network, then again why do you expose them to the application?
>
> If you can give some practical examples where it’s beneficial to “process” unknown extension headers by hosts/applications, then this may be a little easier to reason over.

Segment routing where the final destination is a VM.

Tom

>
> 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.