> -----Original Message----- > From: Gert Doering [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 10:46:54AM +0200, Remi Denis-Courmont wrote: > > > > On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:24:08 +0200, Gert Doering > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Well, one could argue that the standard isn't very > well-written then - a > > > machine that is a *host* should NEVER forward packets, period. > > > > That's a BSD bug, not a standard bug. > > > > The IPv6 specification says host must process RT0. It does > not say they must > > forward packets as if they were routers on the sole basis > of RT0 presence. > > > > By the current spec (as far as I understand), if a host > receives a RT0, it > > must process it. Then it must apply the same rules to the > "new" packet > > destination as it would do to any packet it receives; in > particular, if the > > packet cannot be delivered locally, it is dropped. You do > the exact same > > thing when you receive a packet from link-layer while you > are not the > > destination at network-layer. > > Thanks for the clarification. Indeed, this explains the necessity to > process the RH0 header locally (it might point to a different > address on the > *same host*). Which would be a good tool for anyone intending a DOS attack on that single host. I've been trying to figure out why Steve Deering wanted RHO to be supported in hosts and routers. Maybe this was the reason. Multiple IP addresses in a host. Bert -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
