RE: CRH and RH0

Bob,

I agree. 

But now I have to ask what the objections to progressing this draft might be? Does it damage the Internet? Does it violate some other RFC? Does it consume some scarce resource?

Given that it is only fifteen pages long, I suspect that progressing it would be less work than arguing about whether to progress it.

                                                   Ron

Juniper Business Use Only

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 6:58 PM
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>; Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>; 6man <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: CRH and RH0

Ron,

> On May 12, 2020, at 3:23 PM, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Ole,
> 
> The draft never claimed to be a replacement for RH0. It only claimed to address RH0's shortcomings.

Any new RH needs to show why it doesn’t have the problems that RH0 did.   That does not make it a replacement for RH0, just a new Routing header.

In my view, anything claiming to be a replacement for RH0 would need to have full IPv6 addresses.   That doesn’t appear to be the case with what you are proposing.

Bob

> 
>                                                                                         Ron
> 
> 
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: otroan@employees.org <otroan@employees.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 6:04 PM
> To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
> Cc: 6man <6man@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: CRH and RH0
> 
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
> 
> Ron,
> 
>> What claim needs further substantiation?
> 
> Eh... the claim that CRH could be a RH0 replacement.
> Not sure if that's something we'd want anyway, but I wasn't the one making that claim.
> Nor did I think that was CRH's purpose.
> 
> To repeat:
> If CRH could be a RH0 replacement, you would have to show how the tag distribution mechanism would work across the Internet?
> RH0 was supported in every IPv6 node, given the requirement for a tag->IPv6 address (or is it forwarding method) mapping, I can't quite see how that would be done in a general enough fashion for CRH?
> 
> I don't think RFC5095 taught us that source routing cannot be done across the Internet.
> In fact I don't see how the CRH draft prevents the RFC5095 attack to happen inside of the CRH limited domain.
> Just send a packet with a list of tag#0, tag#1, tag#0, tag#1 and you have the same amplification attack.
> 
> Ole
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------