Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] Why folks are blocking IPv6 extension headers? (Episode 1000 and counting) (Linux DoS)
Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.opsec,gmane.ietf.v6ops,gmane.ietf.ipv6 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 26-May-23 21:13, Ole Troan 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”?
Yes, discard as RFC 8200 says.
> I don’t agree that a well-implemented host and application should blindly accept any and all extension headers.
Indeed. I wasn't arguing otherwise.
> If my application cannot use those extension headers why do you send them to me?
Because that's what RFC 8200 describes as normal.
> If they are purely for the use in the network, then again why do you expose them to the application?
That's a socket API function, isn't it? I don't think you'll find many apps that use it.
> 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.
I never intentionally argued for that.
Brian
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec