On 6-Jul-2007, at 00:31, Christopher Morrow wrote:
I hesitate to get rid or something because of this sole reason, I think another answer would be to make paying attention to it just optional for routing gear (or all things, honestly I really only care about routing gear, and so does this draft).
Actually, no -- hosts which conform to the current spec also process RH0. So even if all IPv6 routers had RH0 functionality removed, hosts could still act as bounce points for the purposes of congesting remote paths.
I'd also take issue, for many of the same reasons stated earlier with: "The severity of this threat is considered to be sufficient to warrant deprecation of RH0 entirely" from the draft, I don't think that deprecation is warranted in this case, if it is than anything that can cause amplification attacks is likely also in need of deprecation.
So, to summarise: your proposal is that RH0 should not be deprecated, but that it should be made optional? I'm not convinced that I understand how that's going to prevent the "amplification over remote paths" problem.
Note too that several widely-deployed IPv6 stacks have already taken the approach of effectively deprecating RH0. So there's a practical consideration that if we decide to do something different, we are diverging from deployed practice.
Joe -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
