Re: Route Information Options in Redirect Messages (updated)

Mark Smith <> Wed, 08 February 2017 21:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9CA41295E9 for <>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:06:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.5
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u8abROIC854C for <>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:06:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0F381295E7 for <>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:06:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id i68so119316543uad.0 for <>; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 13:06:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UcCzsrd29gTSdbNo1g3j8mYu6gmk6mUeHxlru83jCag=; b=XpQo0Hg9uGXE9OMzIadm/5WjoslF3Pfc+r4/ImKed8U3qE9yPMbxvPnsVlNTb/pty6 GUg0uGAArC0gVmFNtZlg5HekQmvgdK61VdFd8O2x07JCGIp91AfnfOeTckrn3kkD6NZ4 Om94HnyDRb6TpjrXr95WFOyR73sAb/gRxOojaeOUeauPhZM/kSjg3E6XIaEXERVIKQnt sFQgCGF8HO0DKA+/qaPobLHdtmTja4S3wkg95p6E81IpKWH7EG6XmjJ5TfcwCZO4etQN PpfAT6z1KNXZDBjge9+C6wHLHC5m0GgE3TLCmNzqePc/PZVcOT8Zqx7rzVX2dZ0PIoAN EqCw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UcCzsrd29gTSdbNo1g3j8mYu6gmk6mUeHxlru83jCag=; b=p6hSX/W0J5wRGr5ieuNOPvSj0/Fh6lAqNgEmpB2EyKoiVUFWVwtyKbnic1VSCh8vwE KOhw45VN8eoVBfbYw+3VuRUKuK2UuVarBw3UFva1hD0rN5KlpMyPgHgKHet8C7mfxpTI filJdWGeUShuckbICq9dQsp6bfmyPuArhl5aCMSThkW66GfVbCQ05vDsIE++8qqCphPD XxT2J0vP+tS7PKcZiyUr/RUNK0ntQ09IIZ/c1abn+Vd0xF/hTRAtGRD/ecmH5S60YtNO dbNLsw0wgLOSwBMKHOC3kdbx4QAryGUWBxQx6dTcj7aghcVkY49YViDqCrBpW2u9XCzN +4mA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLPMf1cFPKsylUo4WEgNTn4c+a1LelceaMsVHdQZJZi23JWI2ojOkSPOmhNOtwQh8/55RE2rALAdpAw5Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id k25mr10255072uaa.141.1486587996026; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 13:06:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:06:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Mark Smith <>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 08:06:05 +1100
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Route Information Options in Redirect Messages (updated)
To: "Templin, Fred L" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
Cc: james woodyatt <>, 6man WG <>, =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 21:06:38 -0000

Hi Fred,

On 9 February 2017 at 07:33, Templin, Fred L <> 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.