: Templin, Fred L; Ray Hunter; 6man Mailing List; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-
08.txt
(Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard
On 12/10/2013 06:04, Fernando Gont wrote:
...
P.S.: Reegarding enforcing a limit
Hi Ron,
-Original Message-
From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net]
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 7:07 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter; Templin, Fred L
Cc: Fernando Gont; 6man Mailing List; ietf@ietf.org; Ray Hunter
Subject: RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain
Hi Ron,
At 16:55 13-10-2013, Ronald Bonica wrote:
Are you suggesting that we don't address the problem because the
code is too complex to touch?
It's a known problem since at least seven years. Given that the
problem is labelled as a security issue there would have to be some
changes to the
Not that I am aware of.
-Original Message-
From: SM [mailto:s...@resistor.net]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 11:20 AM
To: Ronald Bonica
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt
(Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains
Fred,
On 15/10/2013 06:38, Templin, Fred L wrote:
...
We could have that discussion in 6man, sure, but I don't believe that
it's
relevant to the question of whether draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-
chain
is ready.
If it messes up tunnels, then it's not ready.
That doesn't follow. See
Hi Brian,
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 12:34 PM
To: Templin, Fred L
Cc: Fernando Gont; Ray Hunter; 6man Mailing List; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt
(Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard
At 11:55 02-10-2013, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document
: RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-
08.txt (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed
Standard
Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Brian,
Responding in a slightly re-arranged order:
The problem is that you are asserting that middleboxes that a tunnel
passes through
+1
Is there a way to decouple this discussion from
draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain? I would be glad to discuss it in the
context of a separate draft.
Ron
So, it wasn't necessarily the case that 1280 was a product of
At 11:55 02-10-2013, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document:
- 'Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains'
draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in
On 10/11/2013 04:48 AM, Ray Hunter wrote:
I think the draft does what it can in a pragmatic manner, but might
benefit from some acknowledgement that this security approach of
applying parsing at a single perimeter can never ever catch all variants
of transporting FOO over BAR.
FWIW, my idea
Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Brian,
Responding in a slightly re-arranged order:
The problem is that you are asserting that middleboxes that a tunnel
passes through are expected to examine the complete header chain of
the encapsulated packet even if the encapsulated packet is a fragment.
Yes,
Hi Ray,
-Original Message-
From: Ray Hunter [mailto:v6...@globis.net]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:49 AM
To: Templin, Fred L; brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; 6man Mailing List
Subject: Re: RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-
08.txt
Hi Fernando,
-Original Message-
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 1:36 AM
To: Ray Hunter; Templin, Fred L; brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
Cc: 6man Mailing List; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain
On 10/11/2013 12:36 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
FWIW, my idea of the I-D is that it says look, if you don't put all
this info into the first fragment, it's extremely likely that your
packets will be dropped. That doesn't mean that a middle-box may want
to look further. But looking further might
...@gmail.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; 6man Mailing List
Subject: Re: RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-
08.txt (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed
Standard
Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Brian,
Responding in a slightly re-arranged order:
The problem
Hi Fernando,
-Original Message-
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 10:04 AM
To: Templin, Fred L; Ray Hunter; brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
Cc: 6man Mailing List; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain
On 12/10/2013 06:04, Fernando Gont wrote:
...
P.S.: Reegarding enforcing a limit on the length of the header chain, I
must say I symphatize with that (for instance, check the last individual
version of this I-D, and you'll find exactly that). But the wg didn't
want that in -- and I did raise
Hi Brian,
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:50 PM
To: Fernando Gont
Cc: Templin, Fred L; Ray Hunter; 6man Mailing List; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt
: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt
(Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard
On 12/10/2013 06:04, Fernando Gont wrote:
...
P.S.: Reegarding enforcing a limit on the length of the header chain,
I
must say I symphatize with that (for instance, check
To: Templin, Fred L
Cc: i...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; IETF-Announce
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-
08.txt
(Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard
Fred,
Hi, I would like to make a small amendment to what I said in my
previous
Fred,
-Original Message-
From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 5:46 PM
To: Ole Troan; Templin, Fred L
Cc: i...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt
(Implications of Oversized IPv6
Hi Ole,
-Original Message-
From: Ole Troan [mailto:otr...@employees.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 9:54 AM
To: Templin, Fred L
Cc: Ronald Bonica; i...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt
(Implications of Oversized
Fred,
-Original Message-
From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 5:46 PM
To: Ole Troan; Templin, Fred L
Cc: i...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-
08.txt
(Implications of Oversized IPv6
Hi Ole,
-Original Message-
From: Ole Troan [mailto:otr...@employees.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 10:31 AM
To: Templin, Fred L
Cc: Ronald Bonica; i...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt
(Implications of Oversized
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
Hi Brian,
Responding in a slightly re-arranged order:
The problem is that you are asserting that middleboxes that a tunnel
passes through are expected to examine the complete header chain of
the encapsulated packet even if the encapsulated packet is a fragment.
Yes, but change are expected
Fred,
Hi, I would like to make a small amendment to what I said in my
previous message as follows:
4) Section 5, change the final paragraph to:
As a result of the above mentioned requirements, a packet's header
chain length MUST fit within the Path MTU associated with its
Hi Ole,
-Original Message-
From: Ole Troan [mailto:otr...@employees.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 9:17 AM
To: Templin, Fred L
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; IETF-Announce; i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt
(Implications of Oversized IPv6
Hi, Fred,
Thanks so much for your feedback! -- Please find my comments in-line...
On 10/08/2013 03:33 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
I would claim that additional encapsulation headers are already
considered in the 1280 minimum MTU.
as in: 1500 - 1280.
It is kind of like that, but what I am
-oversized-header-chain-08.txt
(Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard
Fred,
Hi, I would like to make a small amendment to what I said in my
previous message as follows:
4) Section 5, change the final paragraph to:
As a result of the above mentioned
@ietf.org; IETF-Announce
Cc: i...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt
(Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard
Hi, I have a concern about this document. In the definition of IPv6
Header Chain, it says:
However
Hi, I have a concern about this document. In the definition of IPv6
Header Chain, it says:
However, if a second IPv6 header appears in the header chain, as
is the case when IPv6 is tunneled over IPv6, the second IPv6
header is considered to be an upper-layer header and terminates
the
33 matches
Mail list logo
