Thanks Dan,we also updated the document just now based on feedback we have received privately. Thanks to everybody who has reached out to us! Very much appreciated.
The two major updates in this version are:- removed the documents that we believed this document will update. We were conviced that it will not - Also, altered the represenation of the reverse traceroute request and response to better reflect what's in RFC 792
There are a few more updates in the pipeline. Please keep comments coming (preferably on the mailing list, so everybody can be part of the conversation).
Thanks, Rolf Am 03.06.24 um 18:16 schrieb Dan Wing:
This is a great design and the statelessness also reduces amplification attack. -dOn May 31, 2024, at 11:17 AM, Rolf Winter <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Int-Area WG, the last time we presented Reverse Traceroute a comment was made that ICMP as being used today usually does not keep state around. We still believe that it does no real harm in this case but, as an alternative that does not need state, we have written up a stateless alternative for Reverse Traceroute. Where's the catch? Well, stateless reverse traceroute can always enumerate the routers on the reverse path, but it can potentially fail to provide an RTT measurement for each hop. But read for yourself: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-heiwin-intarea-reverse-traceroute-stateless-00 Happy to take comments. Best, Rolf _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
smime.p7s
Description: Kryptografische S/MIME-Signatur
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
