RE: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues
itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 2.0) Sat, 28 April 2007 02:31 UTC
Return-path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hhcie-0002B1-Ps; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 22:31:28 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hhcid-00028U-H3 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 22:31:27 -0400
Received: from coconut.itojun.org ([2001:240:501:0:204:23ff:fecb:8908]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hhcic-0004L8-Lu for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 22:31:27 -0400
Received: by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix, from userid 501) id 706E41C064; Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:31:25 +0900 (JST)
To: alh-ietf@tndh.net
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:24:20 -0700" <02e801c78901$a7dd2890$f79779b0$@net>
References: <02e801c78901$a7dd2890$f79779b0$@net>
X-Mailer: Cue version 0.8 (070406-1309/itojun)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <20070428023125.706E41C064@coconut.itojun.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:31:25 +0900
From: itojun@itojun.org
X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: 52f7a77164458f8c7b36b66787c853da
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
i don't understand, rthdr0 must be killed, grilled, diced into million pieces. say farewell. you did not do my exercise even: - how many hops you can make w/ a packet sized 1280? itojun > Manfredi, Albert E wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Tony Hain [mailto:alh-ietf@tndh.net] > > > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:52 PM > > > > > > As I recall the primary goal was to allow a system to state a specific > > > transit path because it was the one that the subscriber had a > > > contract with. > > > Think dialing a local number to get a specific long-distance carrier's > > > presence, rather than paying the extortion rate that the > > > local provider > > > charges for their random selection of long-distance. > > > > That makes good sense for the sending host. But the receiving host would > > have no reason to forward anything beyond the destination address of the > > packet, no matter what the extension header says. Except for the case of > > multiple IP addresses in that host, which I had not considered. > > Well by definition a host does not forward, else it becomes a router. > In any case, I don't recall discussion about using it for alternate path > selection to the same destination, but assuming the source tried RH0 using > the address set from dns, it would be a lot simpler than the shim6 sillyness > with exactly the same security downsides. The thing that it doesn't do is > take the alternate addressing out of the source host and put it under > control of the network boundary policy. > > > > > If Steve Deering wanted all hosts, whether set to forward packets or > > not, to process extension headers, my only conclusion is that he was > > thinking of multiple IP addresses in that host. > > Except for hop-by-hop, the extension headers are explicitly about taking the > end-to-end options out of the base IPv6 header. Essentially every extension > header is there for processing by the receiving host. The fact that there > are artifacts of the routing extension that might be useful to the receiving > host was not a design goal. > > > > > Just trying to figure out what the corner cases are. > > What you are witnessing is the eternal struggle for -control- between the > end system oriented implementers and the network operations oriented > implementers. There are use cases on both sides that can & will be abused. > People tend to disparage the use cases that don't fit their particular take > on the 'who is in control' issue, and rather than defining best practice > configurations they would rather take the easy out of abolishing things that > give the other side some degree of control. > > Tony > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Jeroen Massar
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Jari Arkko
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues George V. Neville-Neil
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Mohacsi Janos
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues David Malone
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Remi Denis-Courmont
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Paul Vixie
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Rob Austein
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Tim Enos
- Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routin… Bob Hinden
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 2.0
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Perry Lorier
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… David Malone
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… David Malone
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Ed Jankiewicz
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Gert Doering
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Gert Doering
- RE: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Manfredi, Albert E
- RE: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Tony Hain
- RE: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Tony Hain
- RE: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Tony Hain
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… james woodyatt
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… james woodyatt
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues George V. Neville-Neil
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Alun Evans
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Jeroen Massar
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues David Malone
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 2.0
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Ebalard, Arnaud
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Ignatios Souvatzis
- itojun2.0 (RE: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues) Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 2.0
- Re: itojun2.0 (RE: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header iss… Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 2.0
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Jari Arkko
- RE: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Manfredi, Albert E
- RE: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Tony Hain
- RE: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Dave Thaler
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Tim Hartrick
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 2.0
- RE: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 2.0
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 2.0
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Theo de Raadt
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Bob Hinden
- RE: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Pekka Savola
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Pars Mutaf
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Theo de Raadt
- RE: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Dave Thaler
- RE: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 2.0
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Eric Klein
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues james woodyatt
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Roger Jorgensen
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Jeroen Massar
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Paul Vixie
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Eric Klein
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues George V. Neville-Neil
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Ebalard, Arnaud
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues gnn
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Mini
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Jeroen Massar
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Ro… Eric Klein
- Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on Kenjiro Cho
- Re: itojun2.0 (RE: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header iss… Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 2.0
- Re: itojun2.0 (RE: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header iss… Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 2.0
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues David Malone
- Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 2.0