Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-06.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 12:49:42 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance WG of the IETF.

        Title           : ICMPv6 errors for discarding packets due to processing limits
        Author          : Tom Herbert
	Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-06.txt
	Pages           : 16
	Date            : 2019-09-24

Abstract:
   Network nodes may discard packets if they are unable to process
   protocol headers of packets due to processing constraints or limits.
   When such packets are dropped, the sender receives no indication so
   it cannot take action to address the cause of discarded packets. This
   specification defines several new ICMPv6 errors that can be sent by a
   node that discards packets because it is unable to process the
   protocol headers. A node that receives such an ICMPv6 error may be
   able to modify what it sends in future packets to avoid subsequent
   packet discards.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-06
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-06

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-06

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Tom Herbert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 13:10:30 -0700

Hello,

This version is intended to address Bob and Ole's feedback.

Tom

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 12:50 PM
Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-06.txt
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>

        Title           : ICMPv6 errors for discarding packets due to
processing limits
        Author          : Tom Herbert
        Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-06.txt
        Pages           : 16
        Date            : 2019-09-24

Abstract:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 22:24:39 +0200

Hi Tom,

> This version is intended to address Bob and Ole's feedback.

Thank you for the explanation fo the desination unreachable.

Could there be an argument made that also the parameter problem code could be used for the aggregate header length?
You can see where I'm coming from... finding a way to avoid using the (awkward) rfc4884 extension point.

Best regards,
Ole

---

From: Tom Herbert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 13:44:53 -0700

> You can see where I'm coming from... finding a way to avoid using the (awkward) rfc4884 extension point.

Ole,

Originally, the draft did indeed define it as a new parameter problem
code going back to May, 2017 before this was a WG draft. In discussion
on this list, Ron Bonica made the point:

"The ICMP Parameter Problem message normally indicates that there is a
problem with an IP Parameter. In the example below, you use it to
indicate that a middle box has a problem with the IP payload. This
seems to be overloading the Parameter Problem message."

There was some more discussion and we subsequently we switched to the
destination unreachable error before this was a WG draft.

IMO, I'd rather keep it as is based on the initial discussion and I
don't think the extension format is terribly awkward.

Tom

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 16:02:35 -0700

Tom,

I am fine with the new draft, thanks for resolving the issues I raised.

Bob

> On Sep 24, 2019, at 1:10 PM, Tom Herbert <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
>