On Aug 30, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Arnaud Ebalard wrote:
In your opinion, is it sufficient to describe potential uses of an
IPv6 source routing mechanism? Or is it also necessary to have the
commitment of a large organization / commercial entity who intends to
deploy IPv6 source routing in a specific timeframe and according to a
specific use?
No. IMHO, if someone comes with a good idea and other people find it
useful and want to have that in their laptop/network/pda/phone ... it
seems you have support and should start working on it.
Is that "no" to the first or second question?
In that particular case, people put the most powerful source routing
mechanism in the specification, which then got implemented on all
routers and even some hosts.
Do you mean the case of RH0?
During the _huge_ threads after CanSecWest during the discussions
on the
ietf ML, we asked many times if someone had a use or had already used
it.
I can remember one person who knew someone that uses the mechanism for
some firewalling stuff (correct me if i'm wrong). I don't remember
if I
asked about the tools that allowed to use RH0: I know only ping6 and
scapy6 (again, correction appreciated).
What i try to show is that the mechanism has been _proven_ useless
by a
past decade of full availability: you can bearly find users and tools
(at least on IETF IPv6 WG ML).
RH0 may have been fully available from the perspective of IPv6
implementations, but given the limited deployment of IPv6, I don't
think lack of current use is *proof* that IPv6 RH0 is not useful, or
would not be useful in the future.
R,
Dow
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
