...and is likely to not perform its function if it is intended to be a hop-by-hop option...
On Apr 19, 2010, at 2:12 PM, Ran Atkinson wrote: > Folks, > > As I've said before, ILNP can work with IPv4 as well as IPv6. > Of course, the engineering varies, but the architecture is the same. > Folks might want to examine the L32 record in draft-rja-ilnp-dns, > for example. > > Further, multiple ISP folk tell me that they are now > configuring their routers to ignore all IPv4 options (including > the IPv4 Router Alert option) because of concerns about (D)DOS > attacks on backbone infrastructure. I don't think that's especially new... > This new deployment approach has the effect of making all deployed > IPv4 options end-to-end options, rather than being hop-by-hop options. > It also means that if one puts an IPv4 option in an IPv4 packet, > it is likely to be received at the intended end node, and also is > likely NOT to cause performance issues in IPv4 backbones. > > Cheers, > > Ran > > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
