Observations on the Dropping of Packets with IPv6 Extension Headers in the Real World
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world-02

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
- 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

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world-02.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: v6ops@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world@ietf.org, lee@asgard.org, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world.all@tools.ietf.org, joelja@gmail.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Observations on the Dropping of Packets with IPv6 Extension Headers in the Real World) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to
consider the following document:
- 'Observations on the Dropping of Packets with IPv6 Extension Headers in
  the Real World'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-02-02. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document presents real-world data regarding the extent to which
  packets with IPv6 extension headers are dropped in the Internet (as
  originally measured in August 2014 and later in June 2015, with
  similar results), and where in the network such dropping occurs.  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.  This document also explains how the aforementioned results
  were obtained, such that the corresponding measurements can be
  reproduced by other members of the community and repeated over time
  to observe changes in the handling of packets with IPv6 extension
  headers.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Document Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world

1. Summary
Shepherd: Lee Howard
AD: Joel Jaeggli
The authors measured drops of packets with extension headers.  It’s an informational draft, intended it to solicit operational advice on treatment of packets with EH.

2. Review and Consensus
Interest level has varied; related work was presented at IEPG and v6ops besides this draft.  About 250 mailing list comments from more than 30 people over 16 months, good discussion at several WG meetings.
WGLC: 4 affirmative comments, some nits which have been addressed.
There were some controversial elements, but they have been addressed. The document makes no recommendations; the WG is considering another document, and may suggest 6man work.
There have been no formal reviews, nor do I think any are necessary.

3. Intellectual Property
None.

4. Other Points
The authors tested several kinds of EH packets to many hosts on many networks. This document describes their results and methods. It may be taken as a problem statement, or simply as feedback to the IETF on the success of Extension Headers.