[ipv6-wg] [v6ops] Extension Headers / Impact on Security Devices

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 09:56:20AM +0200, Ole Troan wrote:
> >>>> Tell me this. Would you be happier if the fragmentation rule said that the first fragment had to contain the entire IPv6 header, plus the transport layer header (for ACL support)? I think Fernando would support such a statement (I think I have "heard" him make such a statement).
> >>> 
> >>> It would certainly make *me* happier???$,1s&
> >> 
> >> done.
> >> RFC7112.
> > 
> > As I wrote in another mail,
> > 
> >> It may be relevant to ask for RFC 7112 support next time we're doing
> >> an equipment RFQ (in a few years).
> > ...
> >> But until RFC 7112 support is available, I believe we will
> >> see a significant amount of breakage for IPv6 extension headers - and
> >> header chains will be limited to significantly less than 1280 bytes.
> > 
> > And until such support is available, we have to deal with the current
> > mess. Which may imply more filtering than some people would like.
> 
> I don???t think that follows.

I would second the observation that this (subsequent action) actually happens.
Not least because many consider it a reasonable approach not to process and/or to drop something that induces complexity & insecurity and which at the same time is not needed by any service or application (read: all EHs except ESP and, maybe in some corner cases, AH+FH).


thanks

Enno




> 
> cheers,
> Ole



-- 
Enno Rey

ERNW GmbH - Carl-Bosch-Str. 4 - 69115 Heidelberg - www.ernw.de
Tel. +49 6221 480390 - Fax 6221 419008 - Cell +49 173 6745902 

Handelsregister Mannheim: HRB 337135
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Enno Rey

=======================================================
Blog: www.insinuator.net || Conference: www.troopers.de
Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator
=======================================================