Yes, absolutely. Rob, I couldn't agree more. >From: Rob Austein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: 2007/04/25 Wed AM 09:13:36 CDT >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], ipv6@ietf.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues
>At Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:41:09 +0200 (CEST), Mohacsi Janos wrote: >> >> The current patch provided by OpenBSD/FreeBSD makes *BSD IPv6 >> implemenation non-conformant to standard. > >Sometimes violating the standard is the only reasonable thing for an >implementor to do. The (IPv4) stack I worked on back in the '90s >shipped with forwarding of directed broadcast disabled by default, >long before anybody had heard of a "smurf attack". The stack had a >compile-time option to enable forwarding of directed broadcast; from >memory, the documentation for that option went something like this: > > "This option exists solely to allow this software to comply with RFC > 1812. Directed broadcast is dangerous, no matter what RFC 1812 > says. Never enable this option under any circumstances." > >Eventually the IETF gathered the collective will to update the >standard, but as implementors we would have been derelict in our duty >to our customers had we waited for the IETF. > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >ipv6@ietf.org >Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
