> > > Should (can) something like the following be added to the draft ?:
> > > "Conformant implementations of IPv6 hosts and routers MUST not
> > > provide a way to activate RH0 processing on the system."
> >
> > This is a very bad idea for two reasons:
> >
> > 1. The IPv6 spec says that you MUST implement it, then having
> > something else say you MUST NOT actually use it is just bad standards
> > making
> >
> > 2. Maybe someone has a legitimate use for this, they should be able
> > to do so if they want
>
> how many times do i have to post this: there's ZERO RFCs that use
> rthdr0. nuke it immediately for the sake of world peace.
>
> as the firm believer of running code (not the spec), i urge you to
> look at http://www.kame.net/newsletter/20070502/rthdr0.diff.txt
> and check out the comments.
as posted earlier, i cannot really sleep tight until the very last
machine on the planet get patched. root DNS servers as well as all
trans-ocean links (both IPv4 and IPv6) are at stake. if this does not
scare you enough, quit your job immediately.
itojun
PS: no need for "go to bed" DoS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
