Re: ip options

[isabel dias <isabeldias1 () yahoo com>]

:-)



----- Original Message ----
From: joel jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica () juniper net>
Cc: nanog <nanog () 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@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