Hi Ole, > -----Original Message----- > From: Ole Troan [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 9:54 AM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: Ronald Bonica; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt> > (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard > > Fred, > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 5:46 PM > >> To: Ole Troan; Templin, Fred L > >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > >> Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain- > 08.txt> > >> (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard > >> > >> I agree with Ole. > > > > How so? A tunnel that crosses a 1280 MTU link MUST fragment > > in order to satisfy the IPv6 minMTU. If it must fragment, then > > an MTU-length IPv6 header chain would not fit within the first > > fragment, and we have opened an attack vector against tunnels. > > This is not a matter to be agreed or disagreed with - it is > > a simple fact. > > right, and RFC2460 has this to say about it: > > IPv6 requires that every link in the internet have an MTU of 1280 > octets or greater. On any link that cannot convey a 1280-octet > packet in one piece, link-specific fragmentation and reassembly must > be provided at a layer below IPv6.
Very true. In this case, the "link" is the tunnel and the "link-specific fragmentation" is IPv6 fragmentation. Which places the first part of an MTU-length IPv6 header chain in the first fragment and the remainder of the header chain in the second fragment. Thanks - Fred [email protected] > cheers, > Ole -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
