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

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Fleischman, Eric wrote:
> I am aware of some use of RSVP in labs but I am not aware of any use
> of RSVP in production networks (i.e., real life networks people
> connect to the Internet with). Simultaneously, I am encountering
> I-Ds and other work planning to use RSVP. This possible disconnect
> concerns me. Therefore, I would appreciate being educated by anybody
> using RSVP in production settings. Would you please let me know how
> many devices, what applications, and how successful these
> deployments (if any) are? Thank you.

I'd be interested about this as well, but also in more general.

I'd be in favor of deprecating the IP router alert option completely.  
Effectively this affects RSVP and MLD *).  I'd want to similarly do
away with the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options.  At the very least, I'd like to
prevent further standardization of these options.

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. on the core equipment which
must run on hardware: effectively this means that either these are
ignored in any case (nullifying the use of such options), or put on a
"slow path" (causing a potential for DoS).  IMHO, it seems just simply
bad protocol design to require such behaviour.

I'm interested what others think about this.. :)

*) MLD should be relatively straight-forward to re-design (just send
the MLD reports to a link-local address which the router is
listening), or just keep it as is for now.  RSVP can probably thrown
away without many tears.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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