Re: Route Information Options in Redirect Messages (updated)

[Mark Smith <[e-mail]>]

Hi Fred,

On 9 February 2017 at 07:33, Templin, Fred L <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> What you are digging into here is out of scope for this document in the same
> way that orchestrating redirects for singleton destinations is out of scope for
> RFC4861.

What RFC covers redirects? RFC4443 doesn't.

>  All it says in the validation checks is:
>
>   - The IP source address of the Redirect is the same as the current first-hop
>      router for the specified ICMP Destination Address.
>
> It does not say anything about how all of the potential first-hop routers on
> the link coordinate among themselves to make sure that the Redirects don't
> steer hosts into a rat's nest of endless loops.
>
> Yes, just the same as for redirects of singleton destinations, there is an
> implied trust basis that routers that send Redirects will behave truthfully
> and consistently. It is no different for Redirects that contain RIOs.
>

Then my use case is not a use case for this. I have to provide
services to stub routers, but cannot trust them to act entirely
benevolently, because I don't own, operate or even have much influence
over what brand they are. I want to provide a the best and possibly
better service to them because their owners are paying me to e.g.,
local layer 2 switching in the exchange, but I cannot let one customer
impact the service of any other customer.


Regards,
Mark.