Re: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

L >> Cc: Fernando Gont; 6man Mailing List; i...@ietf.org; Ray Hunter >> Subject: RE: Last Call: >> (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard >> >> +1 >> >> Is there a way to decouple this discussion from draft-ietf-6man- >> o

RE: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

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; i...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Last Call: > (Implicati

Re: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

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 fol

RE: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

ications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard > > +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. I don't know if there is a way to decouple

RE: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

Hi Brian, > -Original Message- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 3:42 PM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: Fernando Gont; Ray Hunter; 6man Mailing List; i...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Last Call: > (Implicati

RE: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

+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 >

Re: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

er; 6man Mailing List; i...@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: Last Call: >> (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 ch

RE: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

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; i...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Last Call: > (Implicati

Re: Last Call: (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 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 rais

RE: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

ications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard > > 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 &g

RE: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

Hi Ray, > -Original Message- > From: Ray Hunter [mailto:v6...@globis.net] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 9:59 AM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com; i...@ietf.org; 6man Mailing List > Subject: Re: Last Call: > (Implications of Oversized I

Re: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

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 furt

Re: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

> Templin, Fred L > 11 October 2013 17:33 > 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: i...@ietf.org; 6man Mailing List

RE: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

ications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard > > 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 par

RE: RE: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

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: i...@ietf.org; 6man Mailing List > Subject: Re: RE: Last Call: 08.txt> (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains

Re: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

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

Re: RE: Last Call: (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 are expected to examine the complete header chain of >> the encapsulated packet even if the encapsulated packet is a fragmen

RE: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

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 expecte

Re: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

; i...@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: Last Call: >> (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard >> >> Fred, >> >>>>>> -Original Message- >>>>>> From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net] >>&g

RE: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

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; ipv6@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Last Call: > (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Heade

Re: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

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: ipv6@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org Subject: RE: Last Call: > 08.txt> (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chai

RE: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

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; ipv6@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Last Call: > (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains)

Re: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

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: ipv6@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org >> Subject: RE: Last Call: >> (Implications of

RE: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

> -Original Message- > From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 5:46 PM > To: Ole Troan; Templin, Fred L > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Last Call: > (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Pro

RE: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

ubject: Re: Last Call: > (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: > > >

Re: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

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

RE: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

Hi Ole, > -Original Message- > From: Ole Troan [mailto:otr...@employees.org] > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 9:17 AM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: i...@ietf.org; IETF-Announce; ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Last Call: > (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains)

Re: Last Call: (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 requirements, a packet's header > chain length MUST fit within the Path MTU associated with its >

RE: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

y, October 04, 2013 1:42 PM > To: i...@ietf.org; IETF-Announce > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Last Call: > (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard > > Hi, I have a concern about this document. In the definition of "IPv6 > Header Chain"

RE: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

] even if additional encapsulation headers are inserted by tunnels on the path." Thanks - Fred fred.l.temp...@boeing.com > -Original Message- > From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > The IESG > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 11:55 AM >

Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to consider the following document: - 'Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substan