IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues

Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com> Wed, 25 April 2007 13:31 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 1Hghah-0006yI-60; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:31:27 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hghaf-0006xe-0x for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:31:25 -0400
Received: from sa.vix.com ([2001:4f8:3:bb::1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hghad-0000aU-P0 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:31:25 -0400
Received: from sa.vix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sa.vix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 245DB11432; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:31:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vixie@sa.vix.com)
From: Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>
To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org, ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:41:09 +0200." <20070425093402.A30586@mignon.ki.iif.hu>
References: <462D4706.4000504@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <462E7AB4.3050807@piuha.net> <m2mz0xp6je.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> <20070425093402.A30586@mignon.ki.iif.hu>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.0.2; nmh 1.0.4; GNU Emacs 21.3.1
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:31:23 +0000
Message-ID: <35875.1177507883@sa.vix.com>
X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de
Cc:
Subject: Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues
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

> ... The problems of routing header type 0 well know by the community since
> long time. This has been documented for more than 2-3 years know (raised 4
> years ago). Are there any consensus, that type 0 routing header should be
> deprecated? ...

yes.  nobody anywhere still thinks that this is necessary for any purpose.
(if noone within the sound of my voice disagrees, then you have your proof.)

((i just wish i'd had the guts to turn it off on f-root BEFORE the cansecwest
presentation, so that we would not have been such a convenient example.))

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email