Subject: Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues

From: Tim Enos <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:14:02 -0500 (CDT)

Yes, absolutely. Rob, I couldn't agree more.

>From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
>Date: 2007/04/25 Wed AM 09:13:36 CDT
>To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues

>At Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:41:09 +0200 (CEST), Mohacsi Janos wrote:
>>
>> The current patch provided by OpenBSD/FreeBSD makes *BSD IPv6
>> implemenation non-conformant to standard.
>
>Sometimes violating the standard is the only reasonable thing for an
>implementor to do.  The (IPv4) stack I worked on back in the '90s
>shipped with forwarding of directed broadcast disabled by default,
>long before anybody had heard of a "smurf attack".  The stack had a
>compile-time option to enable forwarding of directed broadcast; from
>memory, the documentation for that option went something like this:
>
>  "This option exists solely to allow this software to comply with RFC
>  1812.  Directed broadcast is dangerous, no matter what RFC 1812
>  says.  Never enable this option under any circumstances."
>
>Eventually the IETF gathered the collective will to update the
>standard, but as implementors we would have been derelict in our duty
>to our customers had we waited for the IETF.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>[email-masked]
>Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------