On 2010-04-20 10:03, Ran Atkinson wrote:
> 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.
Yes, but *my* rather confusing reply should really have said that
although details have certainly changed since 1994, we still don't
*know* whether a newly defined IPv4 option will or will not survive
a trip across the Internet on any particular path.
(Thanks to Joel and Ran for pointing out in private mail the extent to
which my message was confused.)
Brian
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
