Re: I-D ACTION:draft-jabley-ipv6-rh0-is-evil-00.txt

[David Malone <dwmalone at maths.tcd.ie>]

On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:16:49AM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / ?$B? at L@C#:H wrote:
> I believe we should rather return an ICMPv6 error.  Even if we decide
> to deprecate type0 RH, there will be many non-updated systems for a
> certain period of time.  Since there is at least one know popular (but
> non-attacking) usage of RH0, i.e., probing 'return path' by
> traceroute, we'll still see non-attacking packets containing RH0.  It
> would be better to notice such innocent but not just well-informed
> users explicitly, rather than simply dropping the packet.

I buy this argument in favour of returning an error. I guess that
means we should select an error type which is usefully displayed
by (some/most/all?) versions of traceroute6?

	David.

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