Dow,

Dow Street wrote:
> I think the new draft is too extreme in its mitigation approach, and
> would favor the "disable by default" option instead.
> 
> Underlying this debate seems to be the question of whether *any* form of
> source routing is ok / worthwhile.  I'm curious how much of the RH0 FUD
> is actually related to the question of control.  While a significant
> move to source routing is likely to impact the (economic) status quo, I
> don't think that means all investigation of a new capability should be
> taken off the table.

I don't think that is the case at all.  What this draft does is
deprecates a *form* of source routing that is open to attack.  It does
not ban all source routing (e.g. MIPv6 can still use Type 2 source
routing) and it does not preclude someone from defining a new type that
addresses a need that they have.  For example, if someone wants source
routing for a "remote traceroute" capability, they can submit an I-D
describing the new type.

> 
> It may not be the mechanism itself that is the inherent problem, but
> rather the operational use model.  In this case, disabling by default
> and filtering when RH0 is turned on allows for careful investigation and
> experimentation of different use models.  Killing the mechanism outright
> does not.
> 
> If we decide that certain behaviors have no beneficial use, we can
> modify behavior for the RH0 later (hard-code some limits for RH0 use). 
> We could also add a new RH type, and deprecate RH0 then.  However, if we
> jump to deprecate RH0 now, without any plan to re-introduce some general
> source routing capability in IPv6, I can see a significant uphill battle
> for adding source routing functionality later.  "remember how dangerous
> source routing is?!"

Well, I don't see anyone on a witch hunt against MIPv6 source routing.

Regards,
Brian

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to