IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Thu, 26 April 2007 15:03 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 1Hh5Ux-0000Cl-Hx; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:03:07 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hh5Uw-0000Cg-NK for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:03:06 -0400
Received: from stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com ([130.76.96.56] helo=stl-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hh5Uv-0004yo-El for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:03:06 -0400
Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (slb-av-01.boeing.com [129.172.13.4]) by stl-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/TEST_SMTPIN) with ESMTP id l3QF33kK010315 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:03:04 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id l3QF32ln023395; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-NEBH-11.ne.nos.boeing.com (xch-nebh-11.ne.nos.boeing.com [128.225.80.27]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id l3QF2rC7022865; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-NE-1V2.ne.nos.boeing.com ([128.225.80.43]) by XCH-NEBH-11.ne.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:02:50 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:02:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CA7D9B4A761066448304A6AFC09ABDA9015AD161@XCH-NE-1V2.ne.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070425101001.GH73965@Space.Net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues
Thread-Index: AceIAa6HuP4+0Lm9RSu2Fd9lb2FPKgAEcskg
References: <20070425082408.GB73965@Space.Net><ec091ee63209add27eb5fa7ac883049c@localhost> <20070425101001.GH73965@Space.Net>
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Apr 2007 15:02:50.0481 (UTC) FILETIME=[F550AE10:01C78813]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net] 

> On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 10:46:54AM +0200, Remi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:24:08 +0200, Gert Doering 
> <gert@space.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > Well, one could argue that the standard isn't very 
> well-written then - a
> > > machine that is a *host* should NEVER forward packets, period.
> > 
> > That's a BSD bug, not a standard bug.
> > 
> > The IPv6 specification says host must process RT0. It does 
> not say they must
> > forward packets as if they were routers on the sole basis 
> of RT0 presence.
> > 
> > By the current spec (as far as I understand), if a host 
> receives a RT0, it
> > must process it. Then it must apply the same rules to the 
> "new" packet
> > destination as it would do to any packet it receives; in 
> particular, if the
> > packet cannot be delivered locally, it is dropped. You do 
> the exact same
> > thing when you receive a packet from link-layer while you 
> are not the
> > destination at network-layer.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.  Indeed, this explains the necessity to
> process the RH0 header locally (it might point to a different 
> address on the 
> *same host*).

Which would be a good tool for anyone intending a DOS attack on that
single host.

I've been trying to figure out why Steve Deering wanted RHO to be
supported in hosts and routers. Maybe this was the reason. Multiple IP
addresses in a host.

Bert

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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