IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues

itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) Wed, 25 April 2007 13:44 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 1HghnD-0005NS-TV; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:44:23 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HghnC-0005NE-GB for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:44:22 -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 1HghnB-0002cU-Sl for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:44:22 -0400
Received: by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix, from userid 501) id B420E1C062; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:44:19 +0900 (JST)
To: paul@vix.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:31:23 +0000" <35875.1177507883@sa.vix.com>
References: <35875.1177507883@sa.vix.com>
X-Mailer: Cue version 0.8 (070406-1309/itojun)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <20070425134419.B420E1C062@coconut.itojun.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:44:19 +0900
From: itojun@itojun.org
X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org, ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de
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

> > ... The problems of routing header type 0 well know by the community since
> > long time. This has been documented for more than 2-3 years know (raised 4
> > years ago). Are there any consensus, that type 0 routing header should be
> > deprecated? ...
> 
> yes.  nobody anywhere still thinks that this is necessary for any purpose.
> (if noone within the sound of my voice disagrees, then you have your proof.)
> 
> ((i just wish i'd had the guts to turn it off on f-root BEFORE the cansecwest
> presentation, so that we would not have been such a convenient example.))

	i heard that, in some of peering agreement contract, traceroute -g
	(something that works like routing header type 0) is needed (for
	debugging or make sure the peer is not cheating.

	to make them happy, we need secure version of rthdr0 which supports
	such use and no bad sideeffect (with new type, like routing header
	type 7).

itojun

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email