Hi Arnaud, > > One of the reasons the functionality is probably not present or used > > as much is because IPv6 deployments aren't as widely present as IPv4. > Are you implying that the functionality is used in IPv4 networks? Please check the mails on the list. they do seem to suggest exactly that.
> > As a protocol feature designer when adding any new functionality, I > > need to see the security aspects of the functionality too. I do not > > think every possible attack can be mitigated > > Why ? > > It's probably true afterwards, but during the design of a functionality, > you can do pretty much everything to prevent a misuse if you have > security in mind. This can be done if you know the purpose of your > functionality (to keep things usable). Here, you don't know what it will > be used for, what the required deployment scale is, .... i.e. you just > want to keep source routing in IP stacks because it seems fun. This is > the way I see current discussions on that topic. Arnaud, I do not want to keep it if it is of no use. But as I said and have seen mails on the list as well as offline it seems to imply otherwise. By controlling the amount of functionality we reduce the attack vectors. That is the entire aim here, to balance the risk to the rewards. Thanks, Vishwas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
