> However it seems you have probably not followed mails I have sending > carefully enough. I have raised this issue on the list way back and > got some feed back too. I have found based on feedback the main uses > of the RH header to be Explicit Traffic Engineering as well as for OAM > purposes (something the IETF has underplayed for a long time). There > is a paper by Geoff Huston (I am not totally sure it was him), that > gives some use cases for operators.
What I mean by "find a use" or "find a customer", is not to point to some generic, hand-wavy "it would be nice" from some third party. It is to get the customer/user who has a real problem to solve to come and explain what that problem is, so we can talk about about how to solve it. Anything short of that risks development of a solution in search of a problem. The IETF has a lot of experience with that, and it is mostly negative. It's easy to find _possible_ uses. What we should be looking for is a problem that needs solving, for which a routing header really is a good/best solution, not just a "cool" or "neat" solution. > Having been the one to have identified the amplification attacks > around a couple of years ago, I realize the problems and related > security issues. However I am not sure of how you say there are no use > cases. I got the information asking that very question on the list. It > would be great if you can let me know what you base your assumptions > on? RH0 has been part of IPv6 for more than a decade. Remind of _who_ has used it or is using it, and what critical applications take advantage of it. I believe the answer to the question is pretty much the empty set. That is what I mean there being "no use cases". Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
