Re: What problem were we trying to solve again? (was Re: Radical

[Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>]

>
> 	Do you honestly think that anyone is going to let ICMP
> information escape their network?

Yes. Path MTU and other things depend on it.

> Do you bother to monitor the NANOG mailing list?  It seems like every
> week we hear about yet another network that is being stupid and using
> large packet sizes and Path MTU discovery, but are blocking all forms of
> ICMP at their border that would allow PMTUd to actually function
> correctly.

I do. And it seems they don't block ICMP for long. Usually, they block all
ICMP instead of merely ICMP redirects. However, Like I said previously, it
is not compelling that some administrator may make a mistake. It is
compelling that programmers give them no choice.

> >                     This is a waste of time, for the harms given, and for
> >  the reason that there are adequate alternatives in IPV6.
>
> 	Please prove this assertion.

Fair enough. There are several suggestions on the table for alternatives.
Both of the possibilities suggested by Jinmei work. I suppose a
demonstration of traceroute could be arranged.  If you are convinced of
the alternatives, will you agree that reverse should be removed from IPV6?

		--Dean


#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.