[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-v6op...] [Tracker] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Errata]
INFORMATIONAL
Errata Exist
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) F. Gont
Request for Comments: 7872 SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH
Category: Informational J. Linkova
ISSN: 2070-1721 Google
T. Chown
Jisc
W. Liu
Huawei Technologies
June 2016
Observations on the Dropping of Packets
with IPv6 Extension Headers in the Real World
Abstract
This document presents real-world data regarding the extent to which
packets with IPv6 Extension Headers (EHs) 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 EHs so that the situation improves over time. This
document also explains how the 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 EHs.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7872.
Gont, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 7872 IPv6 Extension Headers June 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Support of IPv6 Extension Headers in the Internet . . . . . . 3
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Reproducing Our Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A.1. Obtaining the List of Domain Names . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A.2. Obtaining AAAA Resource Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A.3. Filtering the IPv6 Address Datasets . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A.4. Performing Measurements with Each IPv6 Address Dataset . 9
A.5. Obtaining Statistics from Our Measurements . . . . . . . 10
Appendix B. Measurements Caveats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B.1. Isolating the Dropping Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B.2. Obtaining the Responsible Organization for the Packet
Drops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix C. Troubleshooting Packet Drops Due to IPv6 Extension
Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Gont, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 7872 IPv6 Extension Headers June 2016
1. Introduction
IPv6 Extension Headers (EHs) allow for the extension of the IPv6
protocol and provide support for core functionality such as IPv6
fragmentation. While packets employing IPv6 EHs have been suspected
to be dropped in some IPv6 deployments, there was not much concrete
data on the topic. Some preliminary measurements have been presented
in [PMTUD-Blackholes], [Gont-IEPG88], and [Gont-Chown-IEPG89],
whereas [Linkova-Gont-IEPG90] presents more comprehensive results on
which this document is based.
This document presents real-world data regarding the extent to which
packets containing IPv6 EHs are dropped in the Internet, as measured
in August 2014 and later in June 2015 with similar results (pending
operational advice in this area). The results presented in this
document indicate that in the scenarios where the corresponding
measurements were performed, the use of IPv6 EHs can lead to packet
drops. We note that, in particular, packet drops occurring at
transit networks are undesirable, and it is hoped and expected that
this situation will improve over time.
2. Support of IPv6 Extension Headers in the Internet
This section summarizes the results obtained when measuring the
support of IPv6 EHs on the path towards different types of public
IPv6 servers. Two sources of information were employed for the list
of public IPv6 servers: the "World IPv6 Launch" site
<http://www.worldipv6launch.org> and Alexa's list of the Top
1-Million Web Sites <http://www.alexa.com>. For each list of domain
names, the following datasets were obtained:
o Web servers (AAAA records of the aforementioned list)
o Mail servers (MX -> AAAA records of the aforementioned list)
o Name servers (NS -> AAAA records of the aforementioned list)
Duplicate addresses and IPv6 addresses other than global unicast
addresses were eliminated from each of those lists prior to obtaining
the results included in this document. Additionally, addresses that
were found to be unreachable were discarded from the dataset (please
see Appendix B for further details).
For each of the aforementioned address sets, three different types of
probes were employed:
o IPv6 packets with a Destination Options header of 8 bytes;
Gont, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 7872 IPv6 Extension Headers June 2016
o IPv6 packets resulting in two IPv6 fragments of 512 bytes each
(approximately); and
o IPv6 packets with a Hop-by-Hop Options header of 8 bytes.
In the case of packets with a Destination Options header and the case
of packets with a Hop-by-Hop Options header, the desired EH size was
achieved by means of PadN options [RFC2460]. The upper-layer
protocol of the probe packets was, in all cases, TCP [RFC793] with
the Destination Port set to the service port [IANA-PORT-NUMBERS] of
the corresponding dataset. For example, the probe packets for all
the measurements involving web servers were TCP segments with the
Destination Port set to 80.
Besides obtaining the packet drop rate when employing the
aforementioned IPv6 EHs, we tried to identify whether the Autonomous
System (AS) dropping the packets was the same as the AS of the
destination/target address. This is of particular interest since it
essentially reveals whether the packet drops are under the control of
the intended destination of the packets. Packets dropped by the
destination AS are less of a concern since the device dropping the
packets is under the control of the same organization as that to
which the packets are destined (hence, it is probably easier to
update the filtering policy if deemed necessary). On the other hand,
packets dropped by transit ASes are more of a concern since they
affect the deployability and usability of IPv6 EHs (including IPv6
fragmentation) by a third party (the destination AS). In any case,
we note that it is impossible to tell whether, in those cases where
IPv6 packets with EHs 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. Thus, packet drops that
occur at the destination AS might still prove to be problematic.
Since there is some ambiguity when identifying the AS to which a
specific router belongs (see Appendix B.2), each of our measurements
results in two different values: one corresponding to the "best-case
scenario" and one corresponding to the "worst-case scenario". The
"best-case scenario" is that in which, when in doubt, the packets are
assumed to be dropped by the destination AS, whereas the "worst-case
scenario" is that in which, when in doubt, the packets are assumed to
be dropped by a transit AS (please see Appendix B.2 for details). In
the following tables, the values shown within parentheses represent
the possibility that, when a packet is dropped, the packet drop
occurs in an AS other than the destination AS (considering both the
best-case scenario and the worst-case scenario).
Gont, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 7872 IPv6 Extension Headers June 2016
+----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Dataset | DO8 | HBH8 | FH512 |
+----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Web | 11.88% | 40.70% | 30.51% |
| servers | (17.60%/20.80%) | (31.43%/40.00%) | (5.08%/6.78%) |
+----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Mail | 17.07% | 48.86% | 39.17% |
| servers | (6.35%/26.98%) | (40.50%/65.42%) | (2.91%/12.73%) |
+----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Name | 15.37% | 43.25% | 38.55% |
| servers | (14.29%/33.46%) | (42.49%/72.07%) | (3.90%/13.96%) |
+----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
Table 1: WIPv6LD Dataset: Packet Drop Rate for Different Destination
Types, and Estimated (Best-Case / Worst-Case) Percentage of Packets
That Were Dropped in a Different AS
NOTE: In the tables above and below, "HBH8" stands for "packets
with a Hop-By-Hop Options extension header of 8 bytes", "DO8"
stands for "packets with a Destination Options extension header of
8 bytes", and "FH512" stands for "IPv6 packets with a Fragment
Header of 512 bytes".
NOTE: As an example, we note that the cell describing the support
of IPv6 packets with DO8 for web servers (containing the value
"11.88% (17.60%/20.80%)") should be read as: "when sending IPv6
packets with DO8 to public web servers, 11.88% of such packets get
dropped. Among those packets that get dropped, 17.60%/20.80%
(best case / worst case) of them get dropped at an AS other than
the destination AS".
+----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Dataset | DO8 | HBH8 | FH512 |
+----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Web | 10.91% | 39.03% | 28.26% |
| servers | (46.52%/53.23%) | (36.90%/46.35%) | (53.64%/61.43%) |
+----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Mail | 11.54% | 45.45% | 35.68% |
| servers | (2.41%/21.08%) | (41.27%/61.13%) | (3.15%/10.92%) |
+----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Name | 21.33% | 54.12% | 55.23% |
| servers | (10.27%/56.80%) | (50.64%/81.00%) | (5.66%/32.23%) |
+----------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
Table 2: Alexa's Top 1M Sites Dataset: Packet Drop Rate for Different
Destination Types, and Estimated (Best-Case / Worst-Case) Percentage
of Packets That Were Dropped in a Different AS
Gont, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 7872 IPv6 Extension Headers June 2016
There are a number of observations to be made based on the results
presented above. Firstly, while it has been generally assumed that
it is IPv6 fragments that are dropped by operators, our results
indicate that it is IPv6 EHs in general that result in packet drops.
Secondly, our results indicate that a significant percentage of such
packet drops occurs in transit ASes; that is, the packet drops are
not under the control of the same organization as the final
destination.
3. Security Considerations
This document presents real-world data regarding the extent to which
IPv6 packets employing EHs are dropped in the Internet. As such,
this document does not introduce any new security issues.
4. References
4.1. Normative References
[RFC793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
4.2. Informative References
[Gont-Chown-IEPG89]
Gont, F. and T. Chown, "A Small Update on the Use of IPv6
Extension Headers", IEPG meeting before IETF 89, March
2014, <http://www.iepg.org/2014-03-02-ietf89/
fgont-iepg-ietf89-eh-update.pdf>.
[Gont-IEPG88]
Gont, F., "Fragmentation and Extension Header Support in
the IPv6 Internet", IEPG meeting before IETF 88, November
2013, <http://www.iepg.org/2013-11-ietf88/
fgont-iepg-ietf88-ipv6-frag-and-eh.pdf>.
[IANA-PORT-NUMBERS]
IANA, "Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number
Registry", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/
service-names-port-numbers>.
Gont, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 7872 IPv6 Extension Headers June 2016
[IPv6-Toolkit]
SI6 Networks, "SI6 Networks' IPv6 Toolkit v2.0 (Guille)",
<http://www.si6networks.com/tools/ipv6toolkit>.
[Linkova-Gont-IEPG90]
Linkova, J. and F. Gont, "IPv6 Extension Headers in the
Real World v2.0", IEPG Meeting before IETF 90, July 2014,
<http://www.iepg.org/2014-07-20-ietf90/
iepg-ietf90-ipv6-ehs-in-the-real-world-v2.0.pdf>.
[PMTUD-Blackholes]
De Boer, M. and J. Bosma, "Discovering Path MTU black
holes on the Internet using RIPE Atlas", July 2012,
<http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/downloads/publications/
pmtu-black-holes-msc-thesis.pdf>.
Gont, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 7872 IPv6 Extension Headers June 2016
Appendix A. Reproducing Our Experiment
This section describes, step by step, how to reproduce the experiment
with which we obtained the results presented in this document. Each
subsection represents one step in the experiment. The tools employed
for the experiment are traditional UNIX-like tools (such as gunzip)
and the SI6 Networks' IPv6 Toolkit v2.0 (Guille) [IPv6-Toolkit].
Throughout this appendix, "#" denotes the command-line prompt for
commands that require superuser privileges, whereas "$" denotes the
prompt for commands that do not require superuser privileges.
A.1. Obtaining the List of Domain Names
The primary data source employed was Alexa's Top 1M web sites,
available at: <http://s3.amazonaws.com/alexa-static/top-1m.csv.zip>.
The file is a zipped file containing the list of the most popular web
sites, in Comma-Separated Value (CSV) format. The aforementioned
file can be extracted with
$ gunzip < top-1m.csv.zip > top-1m.csv
A list of domain names (i.e., with other data stripped) can be
obtained with the following command [IPv6-Toolkit]:
$ cat top-1m.csv | script6 get-alexa-domains > top-1m.txt
This command will create a "top-1m.txt" file containing one domain
name per line.
NOTE: The domain names corresponding to the WIPv6LD dataset is
available at
<http://www.si6networks.com/datasets/wipv6day-domains.txt>. Since
the corresponding file is a text file containing one domain name
per line, the steps produced in this subsection need not be
performed. The WIPv6LD dataset should be processed in the same
way as the Alexa dataset, starting from Appendix A.2.
A.2. Obtaining AAAA Resource Records
The file obtained in the previous subsection contains a list of
domain names that correspond to web sites. The AAAA records for such
domain names can be obtained with:
$ cat top-1m.txt | script6 get-aaaa > top-1m-web-aaaa.txt
Gont, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 7872 IPv6 Extension Headers June 2016
The AAAA records corresponding to the mail servers of each of the
aforementioned domain names can be obtained with:
$ cat top-1m.txt | script6 get-mx | script6 get-aaaa >
top-1m-mail-aaaa.txt
The AAAA records corresponding to the name servers of each of the
aforementioned domain names can be obtained with:
$ cat top-1m.txt | script6 get-ns | script6 get-aaaa >
top-1m-dns-aaaa.txt
A.3. Filtering the IPv6 Address Datasets
The lists of IPv6 addresses obtained in the previous step could
possibly contain undesired addresses (e.g., non-global unicast
addresses) and/or duplicate addresses. In order to remove both
undesired and duplicate addresses, each of the three files from the
previous section should be filtered accordingly:
$ cat top-1m-web-aaaa.txt | addr6 -i -q -B multicast -B unspec -k
global > top-1m-web-aaaa-unique.txt
$ cat top-1m-mail-aaaa.txt | addr6 -i -q -B multicast -B unspec -k
global > top-1m-mail-aaaa-unique.txt
$ cat top-1m-dns-aaaa.txt | addr6 -i -q -B multicast -B unspec -k
global > top-1m-dns-aaaa-unique.txt
A.4. Performing Measurements with Each IPv6 Address Dataset
A.4.1. Measurements with Web Servers
In order to measure DO8 with the list of web servers:
# cat top-1m-web-aaaa-unique.txt | script6 trace6 do8 tcp 80 >
top-1m-web-aaaa-do8-m.txt
In order to measure HBH8 with the list of web servers:
# cat top-1m-web-aaaa-unique.txt | script6 trace6 hbh8 tcp 80 >
top-1m-web-aaaa-hbh8-m.txt
In order to measure FH512 with the list of web servers:
# cat top-1m-web-aaaa-unique.txt | script6 trace6 fh512 tcp 80 >
top-1m-web-aaaa-fh512-m.txt
Gont, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 7872 IPv6 Extension Headers June 2016
A.4.2. Measurements with Mail Servers
In order to measure DO8 with the list of mail servers:
# cat top-1m-mail-aaaa-unique.txt | script6 trace6 do8 tcp 25 >
top-1m-mail-aaaa-do8-m.txt
In order to measure HBH8 with the list of mail servers:
# cat top-1m-mail-aaaa-unique.txt | script6 trace6 hbh8 tcp 25 >
top-1m-mail-aaaa-hbh8-m.txt
In order to measure FH512 with the list of mail servers:
# cat top-1m-mail-aaaa-unique.txt | script6 trace6 fh512 tcp 25 >
top-1m-mail-aaaa-fh512-m.txt
A.4.3. Measurements with Name Servers
In order to measure DO8 with the list of name servers:
# cat top-1m-dns-aaaa-unique.txt | script6 trace6 do8 tcp 53 >
top-1m-dns-aaaa-do8-m.txt
In order to measure HBH8 with the list of name servers:
# cat top-1m-dns-aaaa-unique.txt | script6 trace6 hbh8 tcp 53 >
top-1m-dns-aaaa-hbh8-m.txt
In order to measure FH512 with the list of name servers:
# cat top-1m-dns-aaaa-unique.txt | script6 trace6 fh512 tcp 53 >
top-1m-dns-aaaa-fh512-m.txt
A.5. Obtaining Statistics from Our Measurements
A.5.1. Statistics for Web Servers
In order to compute the statistics corresponding to our measurements
of DO8 with the list of web servers:
$ cat top-1m-web-aaaa-do8-m.txt | script6 get-trace6-stats >
top-1m-web-aaaa-do8-stats.txt
Gont, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 7872 IPv6 Extension Headers June 2016
In order to compute the statistics corresponding to our measurements
of HBH8 with the list of web servers:
$ cat top-1m-web-aaaa-hbh8-m.txt | script6 get-trace6-stats >
top-1m-web-aaaa-hbh8-stats.txt
In order to compute the statistics corresponding to our measurements
of FH512 with the list of web servers:
$ cat top-1m-web-aaaa-fh512-m.txt | script6 get-trace6-stats >
top-1m-web-aaaa-fh512-stats.txt
A.5.2. Statistics for Mail Servers
In order to compute the statistics corresponding to our measurements
of DO8 with the list of mail servers:
$ cat top-1m-mail-aaaa-do8-m.txt | script6 get-trace6-stats >
top-1m-mail-aaaa-do8-stats.txt
In order to compute the statistics corresponding to our measurements
of HBH8 with the list of mail servers:
$ cat top-1m-mail-aaaa-hbh8-m.txt | script6 get-trace6-stats >
top-1m-mail-aaaa-hbh8-stats.txt
In order to compute the statistics corresponding to our measurements
of FH512 with the list of mail servers:
$ cat top-1m-mail-aaaa-fh512-m.txt | script6 get-trace6-stats >
top-1m-mail-aaaa-fh512-stats.txt
A.5.3. Statistics for Name Servers
In order to compute the statistics corresponding to our measurements
of DO8 with the list of name servers:
$ cat top-1m-dns-aaaa-do8-m.txt | script6 get-trace6-stats >
top-1m-dns-aaaa-do8-stats.txt
In order to compute the statistics corresponding to our measurements
of HBH8 with the list of mail servers:
$ cat top-1m-dns-aaaa-hbh8-m.txt | script6 get-trace6-stats >
top-1m-dns-aaaa-hbh8-stats.txt
Gont, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 7872 IPv6 Extension Headers June 2016
In order to compute the statistics corresponding to our measurements
of FH512 with the list of mail servers:
$ cat top-1m-dns-aaaa-fh512-m.txt | script6 get-trace6-stats >
top-1m-dns-aaaa-fh512-stats.txt
Appendix B. Measurements Caveats
A number of issues have needed some consideration when producing the
results presented in this document. These same issues should be
considered when troubleshooting connectivity problems resulting from
the use of IPv6 EHs.
B.1. Isolating the Dropping Node
Let us assume that we find that IPv6 packets with EHs are being
dropped on their way to the destination system 2001:db8:d::1 and that
the output of running traceroute towards such destination is:
1. 2001:db8:1:1000::1
2. 2001:db8:2:4000::1
3. 2001:db8:3:4000::1
4. 2001:db8:3:1000::1
5. 2001:db8:4:4000::1
6. 2001:db8:4:1000::1
7. 2001:db8:5:5000::1
8. 2001:db8:5:6000::1
9. 2001:db8:d::1
Additionally, let us assume that the output of EH-enabled traceroute
to the same destination is:
1. 2001:db8:1:1000::1
2. 2001:db8:2:4000::1
3. 2001:db8:3:4000::1
4. 2001:db8:3:1000::1
5. 2001:db8:4:4000::1
For the sake of brevity, let us refer to the last-responding node in
the EH-enabled traceroute ("2001:db8:4:4000::1" in this case) as "M".
Assuming that packets in both traceroutes employ the same path, we'll
refer to "the node following the last responding node in the
EH-enabled traceroute" ("2001:db8:4:1000::1" in our case), as "M+1",
etc.
Based on traceroute information above, which node is the one actually
dropping the EH-enabled packets will depend on whether the dropping
node filters packets before making the forwarding decision or after
Gont, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 7872 IPv6 Extension Headers June 2016
making the forwarding decision. If the former, the dropping node
will be M+1. If the latter, the dropping node will be "M".
Throughout this document (and our measurements), we assume that those
nodes dropping packets that carry IPv6 EHs apply their filtering
policy, and only then, if necessary, forward the packets. Thus, in
our example above, the last responding node to the EH-enabled
traceroute ("M") is "2001:db8:4:4000::1", and we assume the dropping
node to be "2001:db8:4:1000::1" ("M+1").
Additionally, we note that when isolating the dropping node we assume
that both the EH-enabled and the EH-free traceroutes result in the
same paths. However, this might not be the case.
B.2. Obtaining the Responsible Organization for the Packet Drops
In order to identify the organization operating the dropping node,
one would be tempted to lookup the Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs)
corresponding to the dropping node. However, assuming that M and M+1
are two peering routers, any of these two organizations could be
providing the address space employed for such peering. Or, in the
case of an Internet Exchange Point (IXP), the address space could
correspond to the IXP AS rather than to any of the participating
ASes. Thus, the organization operating the dropping node (M+1) could
be the AS for M+1, but it might as well be the AS for M+2. Only when
the ASN for M+1 is the same as the ASN for M+2 do we have certainty
about who the responsible organization for the packet drops is (see
slides 21-23 of [Linkova-Gont-IEPG90]).
In the measurement results presented in Section 2, the aforementioned
ambiguity results in a "best-case" and a "worst-case" scenario
(rather than a single value): the lowest percentage value means that,
when in doubt, we assume the packet drops occur in the same AS as the
destination; on the other hand, the highest percentage value means
that, when in doubt, we assume the packet drops occur at a different
AS than the destination AS.
We note that the aforementioned ambiguity should also be considered
when troubleshooting and reporting IPv6 packet drops since
identifying the organization responsible for the packet drops might
prove to be a non-trivial task.
Finally, we note that a specific organization might be operating more
than one AS. However, our measurements assume that different ASNs
imply different organizations.
Gont, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 7872 IPv6 Extension Headers June 2016
Appendix C. Troubleshooting Packet Drops Due to IPv6 Extension Headers
Isolating IPv6 blackholes essentially involves performing IPv6
traceroute for a destination system with and without IPv6 EHs. The
EH-free traceroute would provide the full working path towards a
destination while the EH-enabled traceroute would provide the address
of the last-responding node for EH-enabled packets (say, "M"). In
principle, one could isolate the dropping node by looking-up "M" in
the EH-free traceroute with the dropping node being "M+1" (see
Appendix B.1 for caveats).
At the time of this writing, most traceroute implementations do not
support IPv6 EHs. However, the path6 tool of [IPv6-Toolkit] provides
such support. Additionally, the blackhole6 tool of [IPv6-Toolkit]
automates the troubleshooting process and can readily provide
information such as: dropping node's IPv6 address, dropping node's
AS, etc.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank (in alphabetical order) Mikael
Abrahamsson, Mark Andrews, Fred Baker, Brian Carpenter, Gert Doering,
C. M. Heard, Nick Hilliard, Joel Jaeggli, Tatuya Jinmei, Merike
Kaeo, Warren Kumari, Ted Lemon, Mark Smith, Ole Troan, and Eric
Vyncke for providing valuable comments on draft versions of this
document. Additionally, the authors would like to thank participants
of the V6OPS and OPSEC working groups for their valuable input on the
topics discussed in this document.
The authors would like to thank Fred Baker for his guidance in
improving this document.
Fernando Gont would like to thank Jan Zorz of Go6 Lab
<http://go6lab.si/> and Jared Mauch of NTT America for providing
access to systems and networks that were employed to produce some of
the measurement results presented in this document. Additionally, he
would like to thank SixXS <https://www.sixxs.net> for providing IPv6
connectivity.
Fernando Gont would like to thank Nelida Garcia and Guillermo Gont
for their love and support.
Gont, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 7872 IPv6 Extension Headers June 2016
Authors' Addresses
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH
Evaristo Carriego 2644
Haedo, Provincia de Buenos Aires 1706
Argentina
Phone: +54 11 4650 8472
Email: fgont@si6networks.com
URI: http://www.si6networks.com
J. Linkova
Google
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
United States
Email: furry@google.com
Tim Chown
Jisc
Lumen House, Library Avenue
Harwell Oxford, Didcot OX11 0SG
United Kingdom
Email: tim.chown@jisc.ac.uk
Will (Shucheng) Liu
Huawei Technologies
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129
China
Email: liushucheng@huawei.com
Gont, et al. Informational [Page 15]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/
