RE: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Headerissues]
Dave Thaler <dthaler@windows.microsoft.com> Fri, 27 April 2007 21:32 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 1HhY3M-0005x2-9S; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:32:32 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HhY3K-0005ox-PF for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:32:30 -0400
Received: from mail2.microsoft.com ([131.107.115.215] helo=smtp.microsoft.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HhY3K-00036C-Dv for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:32:30 -0400
Received: from tk1-exhub-c103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.56.116.114) by TK5-EXGWY-E802.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.0.685.24; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:32:29 -0700
Received: from win-imc-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.0.39) by tk1-exhub-c103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.56.116.114) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.0.685.25; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:32:29 -0700
Received: from WIN-MSG-21.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.62.25]) by win-imc-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:32:29 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:32:18 -0700
Message-ID: <271CF87FD652F34DBF877CB0CB5D16FC053929E6@WIN-MSG-21.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <46323659.2090406@piuha.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Headerissues]
Thread-Index: AceI88XoTU7hR0lRTqWNR+a9IFPdvgAHqm0Q
References: <462D4706.4000504@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <462E7AB4.3050807@piuha.net><m2mz0xp6je.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> <20070425093402.A30586@mignon.ki.iif.hu> <20070425141336.E95D522875@thrintun.hactrn.net> <462F7005.50700@sri.com><CE11116E-DF68-481D-AB30-E592C339CEFB@nokia.com> <46323659.2090406@piuha.net>
From: Dave Thaler <dthaler@windows.microsoft.com>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, bob.hinden@nokia.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Apr 2007 21:32:29.0279 (UTC) FILETIME=[8E93E6F0:01C78913]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 244a2fd369eaf00ce6820a760a3de2e8
Cc: Brian Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
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
Two scenarios that are much less harmful are when there is only 1 address in only one RH0: 1) when the intermediate destination address and the final destination address are addresses of the same node. 2) when the final destination address is equal to the source address. In both cases, the intermediate destination isn't being used as transit between two other nodes. A sample use case of the second scenario is for a round-trip traceroute. -Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 10:44 AM To: bob.hinden@nokia.com Cc: Brian Carpenter; IETF IPv6 Mailing List Subject: Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Headerissues] > 1) Deprecate all usage of RH0 > 2) Recommend that RH0 support be off by default in hosts and routers > 3) Recommend that RH0 support be off by default in hosts > 4) Limit it's usage to one RH0 per IPv6 packet and limit the number > of addresses in one RH0. My preference is 2 or alternatively 1. I am currently not aware of any real use case for Type 0 header (but please educate me if there is some). It has been known to be dangerous for a long time and without a use case, it seems waste of energy to work on 4 or other more detailed limitations to make it safe. In particular I would very much like to see us publishing the RFC deprecating/turning this off soon. Developing the rules for 4 is possible, but it will take time. More fundamentally, I believe functions like this need to be tailored to a specific need before they can be made restricted enough to be safe and useful at the same. This is what was done with Type 2, for instance. If we will see a future need for something like this, I suspect that it may need a new Type number anyway. Alternative 3 is an interesting one. It would actually align IPv6 with current IPv4 specifications. RFC 1812 calls for a configuration option to turn off source routes, but requires the default to be that the source routes are processed. I'm not sure this is right, however... perhaps we should update corresponding IPv4 specifications at the same time, too. Jari -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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