>> 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 > > This whole issue is blown WAY out of proportion: the BSD guys should > not forward when forwarding is disabled, the router guys should > disable source routing by default (for IPv4, too, please). Problem > solved, bring on the next one. > > If, at some later date, it turns out nobody uses this feature, rip it > out of the next iteration of the IPv6 spec. But please, let's not > overreact. Compared to what we had to go through with directed > broadcast amplification (smurf attack), this isn't much of an issue > at all, even if you ignore that IPv6 uptake isn't above 0 in a > statistically significant way yet.
I'm with Iljitsch on this one. this thread has provided high "entertainment value", but I think the IPv6 list has had enough of this now. /ot -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
