RE: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues

"Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net> Thu, 26 April 2007 22:52 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 1HhCp3-0004yc-GV; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:52:21 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HhCp1-0004tv-Ez for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:52:19 -0400
Received: from static-66-15-163-216.bdsl.verizon.net ([66.15.163.216] helo=tndh.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HhCoz-0000e3-Vn for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:52:19 -0400
Received: from eagle (127.0.0.1:2630) by tndh.net with [XMail 1.17 (Win32/Ix86) ESMTP Server] id <S2F09D6> for <ipv6@ietf.org> from <alh-ietf@tndh.net>; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:52:15 -0700
From: Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
To: "'Manfredi, Albert E'" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>, 'Gert Doering' <gert@space.net>
References: <20070425082408.GB73965@Space.Net><ec091ee63209add27eb5fa7ac883049c@localhost> <20070425101001.GH73965@Space.Net> <CA7D9B4A761066448304A6AFC09ABDA9015AD161@XCH-NE-1V2.ne.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA7D9B4A761066448304A6AFC09ABDA9015AD161@XCH-NE-1V2.ne.nos.boeing.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:52:07 -0700
Message-ID: <017501c78855$84a6f380$8df4da80$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AceIAa6HuP4+0Lm9RSu2Fd9lb2FPKgAEcskgABBiriA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c
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
Reply-To: alh-ietf@tndh.net
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

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.

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manfredi, Albert E [mailto:albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 8:03 AM
> To: Gert Doering
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net]
> 
> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 10:46:54AM +0200, Remi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:24:08 +0200, Gert Doering
> > <gert@space.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, one could argue that the standard isn't very
> > well-written then - a
> > > > machine that is a *host* should NEVER forward packets, period.
> > >
> > > That's a BSD bug, not a standard bug.
> > >
> > > The IPv6 specification says host must process RT0. It does
> > not say they must
> > > forward packets as if they were routers on the sole basis
> > of RT0 presence.
> > >
> > > By the current spec (as far as I understand), if a host
> > receives a RT0, it
> > > must process it. Then it must apply the same rules to the
> > "new" packet
> > > destination as it would do to any packet it receives; in
> > particular, if the
> > > packet cannot be delivered locally, it is dropped. You do
> > the exact same
> > > thing when you receive a packet from link-layer while you
> > are not the
> > > destination at network-layer.
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification.  Indeed, this explains the necessity to
> > process the RH0 header locally (it might point to a different
> > address on the
> > *same host*).
> 
> Which would be a good tool for anyone intending a DOS attack on that
> single host.
> 
> I've been trying to figure out why Steve Deering wanted RHO to be
> supported in hosts and routers. Maybe this was the reason. Multiple IP
> addresses in a host.
> 
> Bert
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------