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

On 17/06/2015 07:02, Jen Linkova wrote:

...
> (shameless plug) a group of enthusiasts have just submitted a new
> version of document which discusses exactly this problem:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-long-headers-03
> 
> Comments are appreciated...

In REQ-2 on HbH headers, you say:

>  The forwarder MUST	
>  process each option as specified in Section 4.2 of [RFC2460].

That aspect of RFC 2460 was fundamentally changed by RFC 7045. And of
course this is the issue addressed by draft-baker-6man-hbh-header-handling.

Personally I still think RFC 7045 is the most realistic on this point,
but Fred would like things to get better ;-).

I'm sure other things in the long-headers draft need revising as a
result of RFC 7045, since its whole topic is the handling of extension
headers ("This document updates RFC 2460 to clarify how intermediate
nodes should deal with such extension headers and with any that are
defined in the future.")

Y'all also need to take account of RFC 7112, which forbids fragmented
header chains.

    Brian