North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: ip options
- From: isabel dias
- Date: Wed Nov 04 09:54:53 2009
:-)
----- Original Message ----
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Wed, November 4, 2009 3:41:26 AM
Subject: Re: ip options
How about unused and/or private/local diffserve code points?
Ron Bonica wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I would love to see the IETF OPSEC WG publish a document on the pros and
> cons of filtering optioned packets.
>
> Would anybody on this list be willing to author an Internet Draft?
>
> Ron
> (co-director IETF O&M Area)
>
> Luca Tosolini wrote:
>> Experts,
>> out of the well-known values for ip options:
>>
>> X@r4# set ip-options ?
>> Possible completions:
>> <range> Range of values
>> [ Open a set of values
>> any Any IP option
>> loose-source-route Loose source route
>> route-record Route record
>> router-alert Router alert
>> security Security
>> stream-id Stream ID
>> strict-source-route Strict source route
>> timestamp Timestamp
>>
>> I can only think of:
>> - RSVP using router-alert
>> - ICMP using route-record, timestamp
>>
>> But I can not think of any other use of any other IP option.
>> Considering the security hazard that they imply, I am therefore thinking
>> to drop them.
>>
>> Is any other ip options used by: ospf, isis, bgp, ldp, igmp, pim, bfd?
>> Thanks,
>> Luca.
>>
>>
>>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|
