Ron,

>>> I am supporting this draft because the community has become
>> accustomed to stateless firewalls on routers. These stateless firewalls
>> are capable of filtering based upon information gleaned from both the
>> IPv6 and L4 header.
>> 
>> don't get me wrong, I'm also in support of this work. ;-) but if we go
>> down this slippery slope. where do we draw the line? I do know of
>> filtering routers that look at the L7 headers.
>> and I'm sure there are those that inspect the payload as well.
>> do we arbitrary choose to stop at the L4 header?
> 
> Clearly, we have to draw the line somewhere. I think that it is reasonable to 
> stop at the L4 header.

agree.

>> as Karl pointed out, what do we do with the ESP header? do you define
>> which part of the ESP header that must be included in the first
>> fragment? or does this mean that a packet with ESP MUST NOT be
>> fragmented?
>> are there other headers where what consist of the "entire ipv6 header
>> chain" is unclear?
> 
> The document needs to make a special exception for encrypted payloads. In 
> that case, the ESP header must begin on the first fragment, but need not end 
> on the first fragment.
> 
> Does this sound reasonable?

yes, I'll leave it to the ipsec experts to determine if there is a part of the 
header that should be in the first fragment or not.

>>> When a stateless firewall encounters an IPv6 datagram in which the
>> IPv6 header and L4 header don't appear in the first fragment, it can't
>> make an informed filtering decision on any fragment. However, if there
>> is a guarantee that the IPv6 header and the L4 header are in the first
>> fragment, it can at least make an informed decision regarding that
>> fragment.
>>> 
>>> Would the draft be more acceptable if we stated this as the
>> motivation and removed references to NAT64?
>> 
>> yes, I think that would help.
> 
> I will work with Fernando on this.

thanks!

cheers,
Ole

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to