Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues

["George V. Neville-Neil" <gnn at neville-neil.com>]

At Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:43:04 -0700,
james woodyatt wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

Actually I like this solution.

Now, not to beat a dead horse more, but when can a draft be set up to
talk about this?  I'd like to at least know that the code I'm
implementing will be somewhat close to the final outcome of this
discussion.

Thanks,
George

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