On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 05:39:40PM -0700, Bob Hinden wrote:
> [trimming this to just the IPv6 w.g.]
>
> We think the question for the IPv6 working group on this topic is
> does the working group want to do anything to address the issues
> raised about the Type 0 routing header. Possible actions include:
>
> 1) Deprecate all usage of RH0
> 2) Recommend that RH0 support be off by default in hosts and routers
> 3) Recommend that RH0 support be off by default in hosts
> 4) Limit it's usage to one RH0 per IPv6 packet and limit the number
> of addresses in one RH0.
>
> These examples are not all mutually exclusive.
>
> Please respond to the list with your preference and justifications.
It seems to me 2, maybe combined with 4, would be appropriate for now.
I've read or thought about two theoretical uses:
- use it to enforce a specific path that's less costly (commercially)
than the default, or to avoid crossing a hostile part of the network.
It occurs to me that access to such a path would probably be secured
by IPSec or similar; naked, unsecured redirection would be useless in
this context.
- use it to access otherwise unrouted to the public networks
Again, those would either be guarded by IPsec or some other VPN
technology, or not really useful.
Anyway, if any such setup would need RT0 in a controlled enviroment, it
could be switched back on there. (After controlling RT0 *transmission*
past the environment borders.)
Regards,
-is
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
