On 8-Jun-2007, at 07:14, Brian Haberman wrote:
I am thinking that it is easier to fix by deprecating RH0 and then
defining a new routing header with stricter properties. Similar to
the
MIPv6 routing header. That way, the safer RH option can be clearly
identified in the wild and won't be blocked/restricted/blocked by
filters meant to protect networks/nodes from the RH0 attacks.
This has the practical side-effect that it is well-aligned with
operational practice (since several prominent implementations have
been modified to treat RH0 has an unknown extension header, which is
effectively the behaviour required by draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0).
Joe
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
