Subject: [Int-area] Call for comment on draft-rahman-rtg-router-alert-considerations-02.txt

From: Francois Le Faucheur IMAP <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:10:49 +0200

Hello,

The Routing, Transport and Internet area directors have agreed to move  
the work on Router Alert option (that started in Routing Area) into  
the Internet Area.
Therefore, we would appreciate feedback from this list on the new  
version of draft-rahman-rtg-router-alert-considerations.

Thank you

Francois

Begin forwarded message:

> From: [email-masked]
> Date: 3 July 2009 19:15:02 CEDT
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: I-D Action:draft-rahman-rtg-router-alert- 
> considerations-02.txt
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts  
> directories.
>
> 	Title           : IP Router Alert Considerations and Usage
> 	Author(s)       : F. Le Faucheur
> 	Filename        : draft-rahman-rtg-router-alert-considerations-02.txt
> 	Pages           : 18
> 	Date            : 2009-07-03
>
> The IP Router Alert Option is an IP option that alerts transit
> routers to more closely examine the contents of an IP packet.  RSVP,
> PGM, IGMP/MLD and MRD are some of the protocols which make use of the
> IP Router Alert option.  This document discusses security aspects,
> common practices and usage guidelines around the use of the current
> IP Router Alert option.  Specifically, it provides recommendations on
> the use of Router Alert by new protocols, discusses controlled
> environments where existing protocols depending on Router Alert can
> be used effectively and discusses protection approaches for Service
> Providers.  Finally it provides brief guidelines for Router Alert
> implementation on routers.
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rahman-rtg-router-alert-considerations-02.txt
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
> Internet-Draft.
Content-Type: text/plain<BR>Content-ID: &lt;[email-masked] 
&gt;<BR><BR>
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

---

From: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:37:09 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

I'll repeat here my comment that I gave on the mic.

1. I believe the point of the draft is to say that you should not use RAO 
end-to-end across the Internet. If you have a closely controlled 
environment, RAO is okey, provided that you know what you are doing (and 
this part is what the document is trying to tell, describe the more or 
less well-knwon problems with RAO). Yet, to me the message is a bit fuzzy 
and unclear.

2. IPv6 hop-by-hop options have the same problems, I guess.

Cheers,
Jukka

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Francois Le Faucheur IMAP wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> The Routing, Transport and Internet area directors have agreed to move the
> work on Router Alert option (that started in Routing Area) into the Internet
> Area. 
> Therefore, we would appreciate feedback from this list on the new version
> of draft-rahman-rtg-router-alert-considerations.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Francois
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> Subject: I-D
> Action:draft-rahman-rtg-router-alert-considerations-02.txt 
> Content-Type: text/plain<BR>Content-ID:
> &lt;[email-masked]&gt;<BR><BR>

---

From: Francois Le Faucheur IMAP <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:45:41 +0200

Hello Jukka,

On 29 Jul 2009, at 16:37, Jukka MJ Manner wrote:

> 1. I believe the point of the draft is to say that you should not  
> use RAO end-to-end across the Internet.

yes, that is one of the points the draft is trying to make.
 From our conversation, I believe your specific suggestion would be  
that section 3.1 is generalized to say e2e RAO is problematic, whether  
for new e2e application/protocol or for existing application/protocol  
(while it currently only explicitly mentions this for new application/ 
protocol). Right?

> If you have a closely controlled environment, RAO is okey, provided  
> that you know what you are doing

Again, from conversation, you'd like section 2 to make that point  
irrespective of whether we're talking about existing or (potentially  
new) protocol/application. Right?

> (and this part is what the document is trying to tell, describe the  
> more or less well-knwon problems with RAO). Yet, to me the message  
> is a bit fuzzy and unclear.

I think addressing the previous points would probably make things  
clearer. Feel free to propose additional specific suggestions.

> 2. IPv6 hop-by-hop options have the same problems, I guess.

Agreed. Suresh's draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-krishnan-ipv6-hopbyhop-03 
  was also brought to our attention. I believe it argues that exact  
point.

For the sake of closing the RAO issue asap, I liked the idea of just  
focusing on RAO, but if the WG wants to kill the "hop-by-hop option"  
bird at the same time, I suppose we could. Opinions?

Thanks

Francois

>> version