I agree with Tony, this is pure hysteria, and this effort should be killed.
Regards, Jordi > De: Tony Hain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Fecha: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 14:30:01 -0700 > Para: 'Joe Abley' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Christopher Morrow' > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: 'IPv6 WG' <ipv6@ietf.org> > Asunto: RE: IPv6 WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01.txt> > > Processing RH0 does not mean a host acts as a bounce point. If a node > decides to forward traffic it is a router. A host can properly process an > RH0 packet and drop it if one of its other addresses is not the next hop. > > I object to the entire hysteria driven effort to deprecate RH0. > > Tony > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joe Abley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 6:55 AM >> To: Christopher Morrow >> Cc: IPv6 WG >> Subject: Re: IPv6 WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01.txt> >> >> >> 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 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
