Re: I-D ACTION:draft-jabley-ipv6-rh0-is-evil-00.txt

At Fri, 11 May 2007 14:16:41 +0200,
Guillaume Valadon <guedou@hongo.wide.ad.jp> wrote:

> > Since there is at least one know popular (but
> > non-attacking) usage of RH0, i.e., probing 'return path' by
> > traceroute, we'll still see non-attacking packets containing RH0.
> 
> Except some custom-made traceroute6 and KAME's implementation, I am  
> not aware of such usage of RH0. What I mean here, is that deprecating  
> RH0 won't harm anyone (except some reasearchers).
> Discovering the 'return path' is a really cool feature, but the  
> discussions during the last weeks proved that RH0 is not the right  
> solution. Its benefit is too small comparing to the problem related  
> to RH0.
> 
> Deprecating RH0 seems to be the only reasonable choice. I do not get  
> why some people want a 'disable by default' solution to this problem.  
> Do we need to explain one more time why RH0 MUST NOT be turned on ?

You missed my point (I didn't advocate not deprecating RH0).  Please
reread my message.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp

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