On 02/28/2018 01:29 PM, C. M. Heard wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Fernando Gont wrote: >> On 11/28/2017 12:43 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: >>> >>> C. M. Heard <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > It seems to me that the option description and filtering advice given >>> in >>> > >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-04#section-4.3.4 >>> >>> a) it only covers 0x63, and we are changing to 0x23. >>> b) yes, the advice to drop is not good. >>> >>> I'm unclear from a quick read if this the black-list advice, or the >>> white-list advice. >> >> This is meant to be black-list advice. The current advice in our >> document is to drop packets with this option at non-RPL routers. Isn't >> this advice aligned with the fact that the option type bits note that >> nodes that do not support this option should drop the corresponding packets? > > The option type is being changed from 0x63 to 0x23 precisely so > that non-RPL routers will NOT drop packets with that option. > See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-21, > which has recently been submitted to the IESG for publication.
It would seem that such decision has been a response to publication of RFC8200... but I don't follow. What's the reason for which 0x63 was required to be dropped, but 0x23 is required not to? Am I missing something, or is the motivation of the change to "comply with RFC8200"? -- f so, such change is not really required. Thoughts? Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
