On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Suresh Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Christopher Morrow wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Suresh Krishnan >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Bernd, >>> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I'm contacting you as I've a question regarding the Hop-by-Hop header >>>> option 'Router Alert' and its exact use. I hope I don't disturb you... >>> >>> I am generally against any new proposal that uses hop by hop options >>> (including router alerts) since they could increase the processing loads >>> on intermediate routers and could be used as a DoS vector, >>> >> >> most larger ip backbones today don't pay attention (drop/ignore) >> Router-Alert ip-options in ipv4, I don't expect that trend to change >> in ipv6... If you are planning on using hop-by-hop or router-alert in >> ipv6 you probably are planning on a failed solution. > > Amen to that. I think the IETF needs to advise people to not use these to > design new protocols. I did volunteer to write up a document stating just > that, but there was sufficient interest in keeping these options alive.
what's confusing to me is that these survive while RH0 was deprecated... they pose essentially the same sets of problems. -Chris -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
