isabeldias1 at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 4 08:54:43 CST 2009
----- Original Message ----
From: joel jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica at juniper.net>
Cc: nanog <nanog at 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:
> 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?
> (co-director IETF O&M Area)
> Luca Tosolini wrote:
>> out of the well-known values for ip options:
>> X at 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?
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the NANOG