I'm happy to add my voice to the bug. Please let me know what vendor and bug id.
I can't open a bug against a 3rd party misbehaving box when I don't know what it is though. I assume you can get this info since you have the endpoint data somewhere. Jared Mauch > On Aug 27, 2014, at 3:58 PM, Jeroen Massar <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2014-08-27 19:52, Jared Mauch wrote: >> >>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 12:01 PM, Jeroen Massar <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I was doing some traceroutes to determine some weird claim of a transit >>> (not shown in the below trace) being "tier1" while another transit >>> actually popped up in their network and then noticed this beauty: >>> >>> 9 2001:5a0:a00::2e (2001:5a0:a00::2e) 79.018 ms 79.910 ms 79.960 ms >>> 10 :: (::) 101.893 ms 102.004 ms 103.574 ms >>> 11 rar3.chicago-il.us.xo.net (::ffff:65.106.1.155) 104.732 ms >>> >>> Yeah baby, we can use the unspecified address in ICMP replies! >>> >>> Why oh why is that packet even allowed to come back to me, let alone >>> travel all those hops... >>> >>> Oh, yeah, something with uRPF and other such awesome standards. >> >> uRPF is an expensive feature in hardware that most people don’t >> ask their vendors for. uRPF for IPv6 is even harder because of >> things like hop #11 seen above. >> >> We keep asking the vendors but apparently we are in the minority. > > I know that the majority of the list here wants it; but the vendors > don't it seems... one has to wonder why... > > Especially a check for a zero'd address is really not that hard; it is > just crazyness that that is not checked for. > > If possible, please file this problem with your relevant technical > contacts and account managers, as it is just nonsense that that packet > is allowed to travel over the Internet. > > Greets, > Jeroen
