Re: hop-by-hop and router alert options [Re: Question about use of RSVP in Production Networks]

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@nokia.com> Wed, 11 August 2004 22:56 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA28627; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:56:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bv26G-00067q-S9; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:01:42 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bv1qD-0000i0-1I; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:45:05 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bv1j0-00073X-NF for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:37:38 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA27401 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:37:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from darkstar.iprg.nokia.com ([205.226.5.69]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bv1np-0005jU-GC for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:42:39 -0400
Received: (from root@localhost) by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com (8.11.0/8.11.0-DARKSTAR) id i7BMaaL24403; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:36:36 -0700
X-mProtect: <200408112236> Nokia Silicon Valley Messaging Protection
Received: from dadhcp-172019069052.americas.nokia.com (172.19.69.52, claiming to be "l5131412.nokia.com") by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com smtpd9ePa0Z; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:36:34 PDT
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20040811133213.0269cc30@mailhost.iprg.nokia.com>
X-Sender: hinden@mailhost.iprg.nokia.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:36:36 -0700
To: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <87657pwlry.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0408111448190.24098-100000@netcore.fi> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0408111448190.24098-100000@netcore.fi>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d
Cc: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: hop-by-hop and router alert options [Re: Question about use of RSVP in Production Networks]
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034

Florian,

At 11:51 AM 08/11/2004, Florian Weimer wrote:
>* Pekka Savola:
>
> > The justification is simple: any "magic" packets which all routers on
> > the path must somehow examine and process seems a very dubious concept
> > when we want to avoid DoS attacks etc.
>
>Any packet with IP options is more or less in that category right now,
>so it's a very long way to go.[1]  IPv6 seems to make things even
>worse. 8-(

That's not quite correct.  Unlike IPv4, IPv6 has two types of options, 
hop-by-hop and destination options.  The destination options are useful 
because they are only looked at by the destination host and are not 
examined by routers.  Routers only have to look at the hop by hop options 
and their presence in the packet is easy to detect.  See RFC2460 for details.

I am not a fan of hop-by-hop options and am sympathetic to Pekka's 
suggestion, but I don't think it will be possible to prohibit their use.  I 
wouldn't object to discouraging their use and agree we should think very 
hard about defining any new ones.

Bob





_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf