Hi Jari,
As per your request below, we broke up the original I-D into separate
drafts. We decided to make three drafts rather
than the two you suggested so that the third can be incorporated into
any new ND documents at some future time when
such changes are allowed.
The URLs to the new drafts
Is there an existing RFC/Draft discussion of RH0 pitfalls and
solutions to those pitfalls that discussses more than just the
host-based problems? Pekka has:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-savola-ipv6-rtheader-00.txt
which looks like it's mostly host-based. There doesn't look like
I think we had some material in the v6ops security overview
draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-security-overview-06#section-2.1.1
but not in too much depth.
Jari
Christopher Morrow kirjoitti:
Is there an existing RFC/Draft discussion of RH0 pitfalls and
solutions to
The IESG has received a request from the IP Version 6 Working Group WG
(ipv6) to consider the following document:
- 'Deprecation of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6 '
draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
else {
Compare the addresses in the Routing Header to check that
none of the address belong to the routers self address
if overlapping address exist {
discard the packet
}
I don't quite understand that. Does it mean to
Hi Brian,
Thanks a lot for the comments.
I don't quite understand that. Does it mean to check that none of
the n addresses in the RH4 matches any of the current node's
interface addresses? But at least one of them must match, since
packet was delivered to the current node.
The RFC2460
On 2007-09-11 11:41, Vishwas Manral wrote:
Hi Brian,
Thanks a lot for the comments.
I don't quite understand that. Does it mean to check that none of
the n addresses in the RH4 matches any of the current node's
interface addresses? But at least one of them must match, since
packet was
