Re: mboned: UDP port conflict mtrace/traceroute

On 2019-07-25 16:33, Joe Touch wrote:

! On 2019-07-25 15:05, Toerless Eckert wrote:
!
!  > so the destination port number is the safest identifier to
!  > rely on.
!
!   Why wouldn't the IP ID be equally "safe"? (you can set this even for
!   IPv6 that aren't fragments). You're supposed to get the Internet header
!   back...
!
!   > Ultimately, we should ask for IANA to put for the 254 port numbers
!   > following the traceroute assigned port number something like
!   > "reserved for tracroute", and maybe someone who wants an easy RFC
!   > number could write a one-pager outlining this scheme informationally
;-)]
!

RFC 6864 specifically mentions this use in 3.1 and recommends against it.
In particular, the RFC deprecates all uses of the IP ID field other than
for reassembly.

Jim

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned