On 8-mei-2007, at 21:00, Tim Enos wrote:
I would also prefer that RH0 be silently dropped but could live
with an ICMPv6 error message being sent back to the sending host
Why is everyone so in love with silently dropping?
This only makes troubleshooting harder.
See RFC 2460 and imagine that
mothy Enos
Rom 8:28
>From: Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2007/04/25 Wed PM 07:39:40 CDT
>To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
>Subject: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues]
>[trimming this to just the IPv6 w.g.]
>
>We think the question fo
On 5/3/07, Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am sorry if I was unclear. I am on both lists and understand their
> diffrences.
No, you are confusing [EMAIL PROTECTED] with [EMAIL PROTECTED]
They are not the same. The first has nothing to do with the IETF and
can't care much about wha
Eric Klein wrote:
[..]
> I am sorry if I was unclear. I am on both lists and understand their
> diffrences.
No, you are confusing [EMAIL PROTECTED] with [EMAIL PROTECTED]
They are not the same. The first has nothing to do with the IETF and
can't care much about what the IETF will decide, they will
On 5/1/07, Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eric Klein wrote:
> I have just noticed that this topic seems to be going on simutaniously
> on both the IPv6 and v6OPS mailing lists.
>
> The two threads are not coordinated, but both seem very concerned with
> IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issue
theo, i feel your pain. but at the heart of your issues there's a logic error
or perhaps two, and it's turning your input here into a distractive sideshow.
the first error i saw was when you wanted to prevent certain people from
having input into ietf decision making based on engineering errors
Eric Klein wrote:
> I have just noticed that this topic seems to be going on simutaniously
> on both the IPv6 and v6OPS mailing lists.
>
> The two threads are not coordinated, but both seem very concerned with
> IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues.
[..]
> It concerns me that the two teams are worki
On Tue, 1 May 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Theo,
Congratulations. You've joined the other 20 or so people
whose mail my machine will delete unread from now on.
what about keeping those sort of personal stuff out of this (and other)
and other mailinglist? I care zip about you or him, I'm her
Theo,
Congratulations. You've joined the other 20 or so people
whose mail my machine will delete unread from now on.
Brian
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/ma
I have just noticed that this topic seems to be going on simutaniously on
both the IPv6 and v6OPS mailing lists.
The two threads are not coordinated, but both seem very concerned with IPv6
Type 0 Routing Header issues.
This is seperate to the rash of Linux related warnings that have come out in
> Your language is unfitting for professional discussion,
> in my opinion.
>
> The issue having been raised, we should deal with it as
> an engineering matter.
If it is an engineering matter, then perhaps the IETF should be left
out of it, especially those particular people who created this
probl
Theo,
Your language is unfitting for professional discussion,
in my opinion.
The issue having been raised, we should deal with it as
an engineering matter.
Brian
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administ
Theo,
On Apr 27, 2007, at 10:42 PM, ext Theo de Raadt wrote:
I think we can safely
put to bed the idea that the designers were dolts who didn't learn
from
history. That doesn't mean there weren't dolts involved in the
"process".:-)
Bob, actually, why should we put anything to bed? Are yo
> I think we can safely
> put to bed the idea that the designers were dolts who didn't learn from
> history. That doesn't mean there weren't dolts involved in the
> "process".:-)
Bob, actually, why should we put anything to bed? Are you statements
not some "put it to bed, shove it under the carp
> I am a bit surprised that the security problems with the routing header
> come as some sort of revelation at this stage. The intent, as I recall,
yup, it's such 1992 problem. hinden and kame needs harakiri.
> handy. My recollection of a conversation with Steve on this topic back
> in
> > 1) Deprecate all usage of RH0
> > 2) Recommend that RH0 support be off by default in hosts and routers
> > 3) Recommend that RH0 support be off by default in hosts
> > 4) Limit it's usage to one RH0 per IPv6 packet and limit the number
> > of addresses in one RH0.
>
> My preference is 2 or
Bob,
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 17:39 -0700, Bob Hinden wrote:
>
> We think the question for the IPv6 working group on this topic is
> does the working group want to do anything to address the issues
> raised about the Type 0 routing header. Possible actions include:
>
> 1) Deprecate all usa
> 1) Deprecate all usage of RH0
> 2) Recommend that RH0 support be off by default in hosts and routers
> 3) Recommend that RH0 support be off by default in hosts
> 4) Limit it's usage to one RH0 per IPv6 packet and limit the number
> of addresses in one RH0.
My preference is 2 or alternativel
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 05:39:40PM -0700, Bob Hinden wrote:
> [trimming this to just the IPv6 w.g.]
>
> We think the question for the IPv6 working group on this topic is
> does the working group want to do anything to address the issues
> raised about the Type 0 routing header. Possible actio
> On Apr 26, 2007, at 17:17, james woodyatt wrote:
> >
> > [...] I still don't think type code *ZERO* is the wrong choice [...].
>
> Oops. This should have read, "I still think type code *ZERO* is the
> wrong choice..." Sorry for any confusion.
don't worry, the world is in panic like 1
On Apr 26, 2007, at 17:17, james woodyatt wrote:
[...] I still don't think type code *ZERO* is the wrong choice [...].
Oops. This should have read, "I still think type code *ZERO* is the
wrong choice..." Sorry for any confusion.
--
j h woodyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Apr 26, 2007, at 15:58, Tony Hain wrote:
As I said on V6ops, before you kill this off too quickly, James
Woodyatt's proxy redirection is a perfect example of a valid use
for Type 0 Routing Headers. He wants the firewall to redirect
traffic through a designated point (what this header wa
he system should recognize them
as normal.
Tony
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 3:17 AM
> To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header
&g
> Bob Hinden wrote:
> > [trimming this to just the IPv6 w.g.]
> >
> > We think the question for the IPv6 working group on this topic is does
> > the working group want to do anything to address the issues raised about
> > the Type 0 routing header. Possible actions include:
> >
> > 1) Depreca
> Le 26 avr. 07 .AN` 02:39, Bob Hinden a Nicrit :*B
ah, finally. i even try to reach Steve saying "no time for Salmon
fishing, man".
> > [trimming this to just the IPv6 w.g.]
> >
> > We think the question for the IPv6 working group on this topic is
> > does the working group
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 12:16:46PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Excuse my ignorance, but have the following three rules ever been
> considered?
>
> 1. The list of addresses in an RH0 MUST NOT include the packet's source
> address.
> 2. The same address MUST NOT occur more than once in an RH0
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 05:39:40PM -0700, Bob Hinden wrote:
> 1) Deprecate all usage of RH0
> 2) Recommend that RH0 support be off by default in hosts and routers
> 3) Recommend that RH0 support be off by default in hosts
> 4) Limit it's usage to one RH0 per IPv6 packet and limit the number
>
On 2007-04-26 02:39, Bob Hinden wrote:
[trimming this to just the IPv6 w.g.]
We think the question for the IPv6 working group on this topic is does
the working group want to do anything to address the issues raised about
the Type 0 routing header. Possible actions include:
1) Deprecate all
Hi *,
Le 26 avr. 07 à 02:39, Bob Hinden a écrit :
> [trimming this to just the IPv6 w.g.]
>
> We think the question for the IPv6 working group on this topic is
> does the working group want to do anything to address the issues
> raised about the Type 0 routing header. Possible actions include:
>
Bob Hinden wrote:
[trimming this to just the IPv6 w.g.]
We think the question for the IPv6 working group on this topic is does
the working group want to do anything to address the issues raised about
the Type 0 routing header. Possible actions include:
1) Deprecate all usage of RH0
2) Rec
[trimming this to just the IPv6 w.g.]
We think the question for the IPv6 working group on this topic is
does the working group want to do anything to address the issues
raised about the Type 0 routing header. Possible actions include:
1) Deprecate all usage of RH0
2) Recommend that RH0 s
31 matches
Mail list logo
