Observations on the Dropping of Packets with IPv6 Extension Headers in the Real World
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world-02
Yes
(Joel Jaeggli)
No Objection
(Ben Campbell)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Spencer Dawkins)
Abstain
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-03-15)
Unknown
While reading the document, I was wondering under which circumstances dropping IPv6 Extension Headers is the right behavior? Or, if dropping IPv6 Extension Headers is always just wrong? The only related sentences I found are: The aforementioned results serve as a problem statement that is expected to trigger operational advice on the filtering of IPv6 packets carrying IPv6 Extension Headers, so that the situation improves over time. ... In any case, we note that it is impossible to tell whether, in those cases where IPv6 packets with extension headers get dropped, the packet drops are the result of an explicit and intended policy, or the result of improper device configuration defaults, buggy devices, etc. What does it mean "so that the situation improves overtime"? A disclaimer that this study is formulated in a neutral way, as a precursor document for some further advice + a pointer to https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world-00 would be a plus IMO.
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-03-14)
Unknown
- The tables in section 2 would be more useful if they said how many addresses correspond to each row after filtering the 1M. - Appendix A: The URL [1] results in a 404 for me after a re-direct to port 443. I like the 301, but not the 404:-) [1] http://www.si6networks.com/datasets/wipv6day-domains.txt
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
(2016-03-17)
Unknown
I also agree with Alvaro.
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
(2016-03-15)
Unknown
This document provides two pieces of valuable information: the confirmation that IPv6 packets with extension headers are dropped in the Internet, and the description of the methodology used to collect the data. However, I don't think that either of these have RFC-archival value without offering guidance on what could be done about it, or even raising awareness to operational issues (beyond the obvious drops). [The Shepherd write up mentions that "the WG is considering another document" which may make recommendations. It might have been better to wait and package both together.] I won't stand in the way of publication, so I'm ABSTAINing.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
(2016-03-16)
Unknown
I'm going with Álvaro here: it would be better to merge this into whatever other document the working group is considering, and to have this as a draft or in the working group wiki in the meantime.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
(2016-03-16)
Unknown
I agree with Alvaro that this document is valuable as far as providing data that serves as input to other work, but does not by itself warrant publication as an RFC.