On 19 Apr 2010, at 17:32 , Fred Baker wrote:
> ...and is likely to not perform its function if it is intended to be a
> hop-by-hop option...
I'm assuming the above began with:
An IPv4 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...
Thanks for the confirmation.
Your comment seems to confirm the notion that an IPv4 option might well
be deployed *provided* it is intended to be an end-to-end option.
Yours,
Ran
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
