At Fri, 8 Jun 2007 14:38:31 -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > > > 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).
Creating a new "safer" option has been suggested by others several times already including on this mailing list. So, let's do one thing then the next. If someone wants to suggest a safe version of this they are welcome to. Best, George -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
