On Wed, 5 Feb 2025, 04:40 Ron Bonica, <rbonica=40juniper.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Linda,
I think that you are assuming the PE's are always routers. They can be hosts that support VPN.
Going by IPv6's definitions of routers and hosts,
router a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly
addressed to itself.
host any node that is not a router.routers as *devices* perform both host processing and router processing (forwarding) of packets. The IPv6 definitions are really functional definitions.
The host processing of packets occurs whenever packets are received by the router (device) when the destination address in the packet matches any address that has been explicitly assigned to the router (device).
Processing of tunnel packets at the tunnel end-point is host processing, with the tunnel "application" being the implemention of a virtual link.
So a Destination Option is the correct type of option to instruct the host processing of tunnel packets at the tunnel destination end point.
Regards,
Mark.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, this is the most likely use-case. These days, most routers support MPLS. So, MPLS VPNs suffice. There is no need for an alternative forwarding plane.
The only case where you need an alternative forwarding plane is when the PE is a server that doesn't support MPLS.
Also, the Destination Options Header is least likely to be dropped by an intervening network. If we were to follow the reasoning that you present below, we would have to deprecate all extension headers.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 12:14 PM
To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx <gen-art@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-vpn-dest-opt.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-6man-vpn-dest-opt.all@xxxxxxxx>; ipv6@xxxxxxxx <ipv6@xxxxxxxx>; last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-6man-vpn-dest-opt-01[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review result: Not Ready
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BLykpJutCCzxKiIZjeHVdoB338VQZhpLkmdB5B4S_VdshlvRcmCmLJElE3_jegOw0G6IKgyNWQDToPU$ >.
Document: draft-ietf-6man-vpn-dest-opt-01
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review Date: 2025-02-04
IETF LC End Date: 2025-02-04
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary: the document proposes an experiment to encode VPN service information
within an IPv6 Destination Option to facilitate VPN deployments
Major issues:
- IPv6 Destination Options are typically meant for end-host processing, not for
PE routers. Many IPv6 deployments drop packets with extension headers,
particularly in transit networks. The draft assumes that ingress and egress PE
routers will process the VPN Service Option, but if intermediate routers drop
these packets, the approach may fail in real-world deployments. - There is a
security risk of VPN boundaries being breached if an attacker injects a packet
with a forged VPN Service Option. - The document does not clearly explain why
this approach is preferable to SRv6 or MPLS-over-IPv6
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
Best Regards,
Linda Dunbar
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@xxxxxxxx
List Info: https://mailman3.ietf.org/mailman3/lists/ipv6@xxxxxxxx/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
