[128957] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Should routers send redirects by default?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Fri Aug 20 21:56:16 2010
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 11:22:48 +0930
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <op.vhrkvhawtfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Cc: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>,
nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:24:43 -0400
"Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:43:39 -0400, Mark Smith
> <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> wrote:
> > You're assuming the cost of always hair pinning traffic on an interface
> > is cheaper than issuing a redirect.
>
> I am saying no such thing. (a single redirect packet is always more
> efficient.) I *am* saying ICMP redirects are a mistake that should not be
> replicated in IPv6. They are too easy to abuse, which is why they are
> almost universally ignored by IPv4 hosts.
>
I thought we were talking about IPv6 redirects not IPv4 ones. How much
do you know about their operation and purposes?
> In a *properly* configured network, redirects should not be necessary.
> (everything on the local LAN should know what's on the local LAN.) [For
> the record, my own networks don't follow that rule. :-) Coworkers throwing
> random crap on the wire doesn't help. *sigh* Don't go there.]
>
> IPv6 has more than enough mistakes glued into it. Redirects are a mess
> that does not need to be there. For the purests who insist on making ugly
> networks that are trival to subvert, make ICMPv6 redirects *OPTIONAL*,
> *REQUIRING* explicit configuration to enable. Without strong
> authentication/authorization mechanisms, it'll be the same mess that it is
> in IPv4.
>
Know anything about IPv6 SeND?
> --Ricky
