Le 11 mai 07 à 07:52, David Malone a écrit : > On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:16:49AM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL > PROTECTED]@C#:H > wrote: >> I believe we should rather return an ICMPv6 error. Even if we decide >> to deprecate type0 RH, there will be many non-updated systems for a >> certain period of time. Since there is at least one know popular >> (but >> non-attacking) usage of RH0, i.e., probing 'return path' by >> traceroute, we'll still see non-attacking packets containing RH0. It >> would be better to notice such innocent but not just well-informed >> users explicitly, rather than simply dropping the packet. > > I buy this argument in favour of returning an error. I guess that > means we should select an error type which is usefully displayed > by (some/most/all?) versions of traceroute6?
If you go for that, then an ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 0, message pointing to the unrecognized routing type seems reasonable. a+ -- Arnaud Ebalard EADS Innovation Works - IT Sec Research Engineer PGP KeyID:047A5026 FingerPrint:47EB85FEB99AAB85FD0946F30255957C047A5026 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
