At Fri, 11 May 2007 14:16:41 +0200,
Guillaume Valadon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Since there is at least one know popular (but
> > non-attacking) usage of RH0, i.e., probing 'return path' by
> > traceroute, we'll still see non-attacking packets containing RH0.
>
> Except some custom-made traceroute6 and KAME's implementation, I am
> not aware of such usage of RH0. What I mean here, is that deprecating
> RH0 won't harm anyone (except some reasearchers).
> Discovering the 'return path' is a really cool feature, but the
> discussions during the last weeks proved that RH0 is not the right
> solution. Its benefit is too small comparing to the problem related
> to RH0.
>
> Deprecating RH0 seems to be the only reasonable choice. I do not get
> why some people want a 'disable by default' solution to this problem.
> Do we need to explain one more time why RH0 MUST NOT be turned on ?
You missed my point (I didn't advocate not deprecating RH0). Please
reread my message.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
