ip options

isabel dias 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:
> 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 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?
>> Thanks,
>> Luca.
>>
>>
>>
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 




More information about the NANOG mailing list