Routing Header Type 0 way forward
Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Mon, 14 May 2007 20:27 UTC
Return-path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hnh8o-0000e1-2K; Mon, 14 May 2007 16:27:34 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hngu6-0003zA-LP for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 14 May 2007 16:12:22 -0400
Received: from pilot.jhuapl.edu ([128.244.198.200] helo=jhuapl.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hngu5-0003lb-FG for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 14 May 2007 16:12:22 -0400
Received: from ([128.244.206.105]) by pilot.jhuapl.edu with ESMTP id 5502123.31570333; Mon, 14 May 2007 16:12:05 -0400
Message-ID: <4648C294.6090600@innovationslab.net>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 16:12:04 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Macintosh/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <464883F7.4090906@innovationslab.net> <C0419CEF-7263-4CE0-838C-7C42423FD698@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <C0419CEF-7263-4CE0-838C-7C42423FD698@nokia.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 14 May 2007 16:27:31 -0400
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@nokia.com>
Subject: Routing Header Type 0 way forward
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
IPv6 WG, The chairs have reviewed all the comments and feedback on the Routing Header Type 0 vulnerability. The consensus of the working group is seen as: - Deprecate the Type 0 Routing Header - Provide guidance to operators to disable RH0 where possible As a part of the deprecation, implementations should return an ICMP parameter problem message to the packet source. The chairs request that the authors of the two two drafts currently published discussing the RH0 issue (draft-jabley-ipv6-rh0-is-evil-00.txt and draft-savola-ipv6-rtheader-00.txt) combine them and publish a single draft as an IPv6 w.g. document. Please make any issues/problems you may have with this approach known to either the mailing list or the chairs directly. Regards, Bob and Brian IPv6 WG co-chairs -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- Routing Header Type 0 way forward Brian Haberman
- Re: Routing Header Type 0 way forward Ebalard, Arnaud
- Re: Routing Header Type 0 way forward Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Routing Header Type 0 way forward Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 2.0
- Re: Routing Header Type 0 way forward Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 2.0
- Re: Routing Header Type 0 way forward Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Routing Header Type 0 way forward Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Routing Header Type 0 way forward Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 2.0
- Re: Routing Header Type 0 way forward Ole Troan
- Re: Routing Header Type 0 way forward Paul Vixie
- Re: Routing Header Type 0 way forward Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Routing Header Type 0 way forward Joe Abley
- Re: Routing Header Type 0 way forward Tim Enos
- Re: Routing Header Type 0 way forward Tim Enos
- Re: Routing Header Type 0 way forward Joe Abley
- Re: Routing Header Type 0 way forward Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Routing Header Type 0 way forward Iljitsch van Beijnum