On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 19:05:37 +0100 (CET)
> From: Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> | It isn't obvious to me from reading RFC 2460 whether a host can drop packets
> | with routing headers instead of resubmitting them for transmissing to the
> | next hop.
>
[snip]
> There is though a different, related, question - one where what 2460 says
> is applicable ... that is whether a host implementation should simply drop
> packets containing source routes, rather than forwarding them.
>
> Here we get the questions of the conformance of the implementation to the
> spec.
>
> And there I think the answer is a clear no - implementations are required
> to be at least capable of processing routing headers (even in hosts).
The last sentence IMO doesn't answer the real question.
I think it's quite clear that all nodes must support routing headers, that
is, recognize the header type, be able to parse it, not send ICMP
parameter problem packets back to the source, etc.
The real question how one processes a datagram with a routing header when
the forwarding of routing headers has been disabled. This issue is not
mentioned in the specification (one could argue it should not be).
The options basically are:
1) ignore the routing header, that is, act like segments left would have
been = 0
2) drop the packet silently
3) drop the packet and send back an ICMP message
- with some already defined type/code
- with some new type/code
--
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
