Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues

[james woodyatt <jhw at apple.com>]

On Apr 27, 2007, at 05:38, Ebalard, Arnaud wrote:
> Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at nokia.com> wrote:
> >  Possible actions include:
> >
> >  1) Deprecate all usage of RH0
> >  2) Recommend that RH0 support be off by default in hosts and routers
> >  3) Recommend that RH0 support be off by default in hosts
> >  4) Limit it's usage to one RH0 per IPv6 packet and limit the  
> > number of addresses in one RH0.
> >
> > These examples are not all mutually exclusive.
>
> From my perspective, RH0 should be deprecated to simplify IPv6  
> specification, stacks' implementations and suppress associated  
> threats. Keeping the generic RH mechanism will be sufficient for  
> new protocols to __carefully__ provide associated functionalities  
> (if any), just like the designers of Mobile IPv6 did with RH2  
> (IMHO, processing limited to MIPv6 implementations, no external  
> forwarding, one address max, ...).

I agree that all transmissions of RH0 should be deprecated, and I  
further recommend the draft standards be amended to require that RH0  
be rejected with an ICMP error when received at the first destination  
and dropped silently in all other cases.  This will allow operators  
to identify and neutralize preemptively exactly those nodes which do  
not comply with the amended standard.


--
j h woodyatt <jhw at apple.com>



--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------