IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Dumb question about routing headers

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Sun, 24 May 2020 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 358BE3A0C32 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 May 2020 14:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L0zU_ubnU_Qt for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 May 2020 14:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x334.google.com (mail-ot1-x334.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::334]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D33B73A0C04 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 May 2020 14:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x334.google.com with SMTP id a68so12468855otb.10 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 May 2020 14:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=S4WX2efhfj2z6aNJvKzhKcUZnJ5MlyMmuyv3nlojdvo=; b=HNK9kdWNAuzv6feHOFqp5ylWJakuuIs0lwVVPOI+2Tnyp4hBZNEog+vCIfxIkgbhFQ hz883KnCgY3PD4FASG9ZbZnaJgaSe4AdLZdMpTLcKxdnZEJGhOXw2ysXqZRWmJ1ZEC6V 9cuU3qIKzYFSOtjwMctvmFRzXoJNoUNVfMmJO2xfFP/LTj5E8XDPnlSrOvxEEhgbx2qH HQiWdwhiCC/s4GWiZ2sNsK4f5F0q8H/6wCxeLBBbLS/RXNJj7qwyNz7bwzsi7btgZTO7 7F5zF+3uHwtIXxMOdRN2LTqUPYoLxMU9NAC2W1+Ip/zwIQlCTZJwrqpm6/ip1zeCsCF1 Pp9w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=S4WX2efhfj2z6aNJvKzhKcUZnJ5MlyMmuyv3nlojdvo=; b=hK6qH7eV7IPYGjj9ywZsZfHIByK3wGqQl48xmfjJI+6keADl4pPoKP3PB4OeFJ8/RL DYkep2RsbF1H6PxakRL6whwdYo3QQ+AP7ZDt3Q9Vc0f63IeZybB8ais2ceF9dbYY1H7y 6ySbaV3H5bhiV71ypQQ3gcTmt+6K/y3grDJhIcpWAxbN2vuAGvdEJIriu0q4pisaF0xn xsXqJdQHxAYg5X+rXsa2W+IHTPEuCy5iffT8FwXPA3fxZPd7BygaP3RNC7nzee3uYdUz zYjYPwaA6czYVi8M/xOL6pDUsWx5SsTVIIo18AVDU5vAIXvRXLvbiGojTKYnISUO82CW y+dA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5310dTxBiK1mGYuZXdlQp3HIEeOEUEpFQCOGSV6k2amjn17Om6D9 EPg/2qqhQ4HcBp7Jd987zXarrB3oc6QQkIsYUV4vYw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwLEMcYzRgKU3y8X+mgkB/XpQZBBpL3bdDmc7nAxv5WqgjQR5aj08HaHZbMoQEHFUwJTF7V/JfHa+NBAfJuyjI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:20d7:: with SMTP id z23mr19617240otq.153.1590355321339; Sun, 24 May 2020 14:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4cf28892-12a9-7376-c378-4af46f7002c2@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4cf28892-12a9-7376-c378-4af46f7002c2@gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 07:21:50 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2y7qWVMBmhKw4_AmjS8+xCbZJBKJ5q95+VtccaEe1B3Cg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Dumb question about routing headers
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fec1c805a66b7353"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/rYpSUtDqQu4-xsHZD0Ldj10YYvU>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 21:22:04 -0000

On Mon, 25 May 2020, 07:06 Brian E Carpenter, <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Is a routing header whose final destination is a multicast address, but
> whose previous segments are all unicast, valid?
>


A related question is are multicast addresses within the list if hops to
visit valid?

I thought it might not be because you could create a worse version of the
RFC 5095 attack.

However, I think the multicast forwarding RPF check prevents that working,
so a multicast addresses anywhere in an RH set of hops could be valid.

Haven't thought of a use for it though.

Regards,
Mark.


> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email