IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues

Gert Doering gert at space.net
Wed Apr 25 10:24:08 CEST 2007


On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 09:41:09AM +0200, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> I think this is not a solution. The problems of routing header type 0 well 
> know by the community since long time. This has been documented for more 
> than 2-3 years know (raised 4 years ago). Are there any consensus, that 
> type 0 routing header should be deprecated? Until that it is documented to
>  be filtered if there is no need for it. The current patch provided by 
> OpenBSD/FreeBSD makes *BSD IPv6 implemenation non-conformant to standard. 

Well, one could argue that the standard isn't very well-written then - a 
machine that is a *host* should NEVER forward packets, period.

That's what we have routers for, and there is a well-defined way to 
change a *BSD machine from a "host" to a "router" (turn on ip6.forwarding).

> I would rather focus on pf changes - allow filtering based on the routing 
> header type. Currently you can filter based existence/non-existence of 
> routing header type. This is currently clearly not enough....

Extending pf(4) accordingly would certainly be a good thing, as it could
help other machines behind a NetBSD firewall.

(BTW - what's pf(4) doing if a packet comes with with RH0?  Which address
does it use for ACL checking, and which address is used for state setup?)

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  113403

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list