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

[Guillaume Valadon / ãããã ãããã <guedou at hongo.wide.ad.jp>]

Hi,

> 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.

Except some custom-made traceroute6 and KAME's implementation, I am  
not aware of such usage of RH0. What I mean here, is that deprecating  
RH0 won't harm anyone (except some reasearchers).
Discovering the 'return path' is a really cool feature, but the  
discussions during the last weeks proved that RH0 is not the right  
solution. Its benefit is too small comparing to the problem related  
to RH0.

Deprecating RH0 seems to be the only reasonable choice. I do not get  
why some people want a 'disable by default' solution to this problem.  
Do we need to explain one more time why RH0 MUST NOT be turned on ?

Guillaume

--
Guillaume Valadon / ãããã ãããã
guedou at hongo.wide.ad.jp




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