"As Figure 5 shows, in many cases no connection was
established when
the [IP] Record Route Option or the [IP] Timestamp Option
was included in
the SYN packet. When IP Option X [a new IP Option; e.g.,
QuickStart]
is included in the SYN segment, the connection was not established
to over 70% of the web servers tested. This does not
bode well for
the deployment of new IP options in the Internet."
It implies that mobile IPv6 depndeing on routing header
may not work.
=> This statement is true IFF people assume that
Record Route Option == Routing header type 2 used for MIPv6.
Of course that is not true because there are security
implications for using routing header type 2 and an
assumption that the end node will verfiy such use. Moreover,
RH type 2 will not impact other nodes behind the FW
if used in a malicious way. All this points to two things:
1. The two are not equivalent, and
2. We need to make sure that network admins know (1).
Hesham
===========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
and delete all copies.
===========================================================
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf