Re: Question: Hop-by-Hop Header and Router Alert

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Suresh Krishnan
<suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Suresh Krishnan
>> <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Bernd,
>>>
>>> SpawnRR@gmx.de wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I'm contacting you as I've a question regarding the Hop-by-Hop header
>>>> option 'Router Alert' and its exact use. I hope I don't disturb you...
>>>
>>> I am generally against any new proposal that uses hop by hop options
>>> (including router alerts) since they could increase the processing loads
>>> on intermediate routers and could be used as a DoS vector,
>>>
>>
>> most larger ip backbones today don't pay attention (drop/ignore)
>> Router-Alert ip-options in ipv4, I don't expect that trend to change
>> in ipv6... If you are planning on using hop-by-hop or router-alert in
>> ipv6 you probably are planning on a failed solution.
>
> Amen to that. I think the IETF needs to advise people to not use these to
> design new protocols. I did volunteer to write up a document stating just
> that, but there was sufficient interest in keeping these options alive.

what's confusing to me is that these survive while RH0 was
deprecated... they pose essentially the same sets of problems.

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