On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 3:30 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 23 May 2008 15:00:02 EDT, Ron Bonica said: >> Folks, >> >> It is my belief that many ISPs, will not accept datagrams containing the >> Router Alert IP option from customers. Do I have that right? >> >> I am asking so that I might better evaluate Internet drafts that would >> require ISPs to accept such packets. > > What you're likely to find in *reality* is that ISPs will be more than happy > to pass the packets along, but the corporate/consumer firewalls in place
s/pass the packets/pass the packets that don't harm their network devices/ > at the ISP's *customers* will stomp on the options (see all the ways that > mismanaged firewalls fail to do ingress/egress filtering of rfc1918 packets, > or think "ICMP Frag Needed" means "This ICMP needs to be fragged", or...). > > And it doesn't really matter if it's the ISP or the end site that screws it > up - if it gets thrown away, it gets thrown away. > > Unless you had an ISP-specific use for Router Alert, where end-customer > behavior doesn't matter? router-alert is blocked in many places, I believe (I'm fuzzy on this) that some vendors allow you to ignore router-alert, which I think is the preferred option for this option. -Chris
