Ron, see inline.
Am 06.11.24 um 18:12 schrieb Ron Bonica:
Rolf,I do not think that legacy middlebox behavior is a good reason to change existing PDU semantics. The following are rationale:1. We may be subverting the purpose of the middle box. Some middleboxes are firewalls. Assume that a network operator doesn't want reverse traceroute traffic in their network until they have had time to evaluate it. By making reverse traceroute traffic indistinguishable from PING (at least to legacy middlebox), we sneak past the network's defenses.
That is not correct. It is distiguishable, since the codes are different and we would register those with IANA. We are not hiding the fact that it is different. Also, since the ICMP code is in a fixed location, this could be filtered in HW efficiently.
2.
We are setting a bad precedent. If we change the semantics of an
existing PDU every time we need a new function, semantics will
become overloaded sooner or later. Do we want to face that painful
situation in the future, or do we want to get people in the habit of
keeping their middleboxes up to date now.
I would disagree. We use different codes, so this is a different PDU. Also, if we argue along those lines, we probably would need to go down a different route altogher and use a completely new type, i.e. also not use Extended Echo.
3.
We may remove what little motivation operators have to keep their
middle boxes up to date.
This is speculation at best and I don't see that at all. Best, Rolf
RonJuniper Business Use Only _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- int-area@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to int-area-le...@ietf.org
smime.p7s
Description: Kryptografische S/MIME-Signatur
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- int-area@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to int-area-le...@ietf.org
