IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 2.0) Mon, 30 April 2007 17:46 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 1HiZxh-0000js-4U; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:46:57 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HiZxg-0000jn-Hk for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:46:56 -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 1HiZxf-00051D-2c for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:46:56 -0400
Received: by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix, from userid 501) id DFF0A1C067; Tue, 1 May 2007 02:46:52 +0900 (JST)
To: dthaler@windows.microsoft.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:30:57 -0700" <271CF87FD652F34DBF877CB0CB5D16FC05392DD8@WIN-MSG-21.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
References: <271CF87FD652F34DBF877CB0CB5D16FC05392DD8@WIN-MSG-21.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
X-Mailer: Cue version 0.8 (070406-1309/itojun)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <20070430174652.DFF0A1C067@coconut.itojun.org>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 02:46:52 +0900
From: itojun@itojun.org
X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, pekkas@netcore.fi
Subject: RE: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Headerissues]
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

	again reading from backwards.

> Round-trip traceroute is useful inside intra-domain environments as 
> you note, where ingress filtering isn't generally deployed.  Hence
> it works in many places today and it can be very useful for debugging.
> 
> Also, as noted in the original PDF that started this thread, Windows
> (and I think at least one other OS if I remember the PDF correctly)
> supports RH for compliance, but already disables RH by default. 
> Since that's already the deployed behavior of many hosts, I'd
> support the disabled-by-default as the best choice.

	i know! that's why "routing header type 7" (a variant of routing
	header type 0 which has no bad sideeffect) was mentioned a couple of
	days ago!

itojun
PS: please let me sleep.  stop wasteful repetitive proposal before i turn into
zombie.  your cooperation is needed, but "go to bed" DDoS stops my work.  tnx.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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