Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Headerissues]

[Jeroen Massar <[e-mail]>]

[e-mail] wrote:
[..]
> I think my initial email gave the wrong impression of Solaris' behavior.
> 
> Solaris 9 & 10 will drop these packets by default, whether they
> are being received as the final destination or as a stepping stone.

Cool, that sounds much better (IMHO :) Does the "DROP" imply a silent
discard of the packet or does it send an ICMP parameter problem?

Reason I am asking is more for the follow up question, which is useful
for the deprecation drafts: what do you (and others) think is a
reasonable default:

 a) Silently discard the packet (maybe a log entry somewhere)
 b) Discard packet, but send back an ICMPv6 Parameter Problem.
 c) Don't process packet, but forward it anyway

Option c) seems to be clearing off the table by most implementation from
what I have seen upto now. Most don't even have a knob to turn it on
again either.

I am in favor of, and have implemented, option a), though b) doesn't
seem to be a very bad option either as backscatter is minimal and only
to the sending host who should most likely know about it. Next to that,
as itojun mentioned, ICMPv6 errors are rate-limited anyway when
implemented according to the spec.

Greets,
 Jeroen
  (I got no Solaris boxes around to test)
  (http://www.sixxs.net/faq/connectivity/?faq=filters updated)

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