Subject: Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues

From: "George V. Neville-Neil" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 14:18:27 -0700

At Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:43:04 -0700,
james woodyatt wrote:
> 
> On Apr 27, 2007, at 05:38, Ebalard, Arnaud wrote:
> > Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> 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
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: David Malone <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 16:23:21 +0100

On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 05:43:04PM -0700, james woodyatt wrote:
> I  

I was wondering if this is actually useful. I would expect that
operators would want to find hosts that blindly process RH0 headers,
not machines that send them or machines that don't process them.
Sending an ICMP message would seem only to flag up machines that
send RH0 or machines that don't process RH0, which doesn't seem so
useful.

If an operator wanted to scan for machines that process RH0 headers,
then patched machines sending ICMP messages might nearly be a
hinderance.

	David.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 2.0)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 00:59:28 +0900 (JST)

> then patched machines sending ICMP messages might nearly be a

	KAME suggests a patch which returns ICMPv6 parameter problem,
	as there's no amplification of the # of packets and ICMPv6 error
	packets are rate-limited (if implemented in specwise correct way).
	but i understand there could be suggestions like yours - that it
	should be silently discarded.  so we have added some comment
	about it.

	KAME tree will keep the current state until the consensus had been
	reached, and will update the code if we are not spec-conformant.

	i personally have no real time to participate the discussion,
	so we will act by updating KAME tree and contacting vendors - yes,
	we really believe in running code (not the spec until it gets really
	finalized).
	http://www.kame.net/dev/cvsweb2.cgi/kame/kame/sys/netinet6/route6.c.diff?r1=1.60;r2=1.63

itojun2.0
PS: i'm polite this time, eh?