Thanks for the reply, Chirayu. Indeed, this does not seem expensive (even for a hardware implementation...), but if it is agreed that this validation should take place, perhaps it should be documented in the "Node Requirements", or in RFC 2464 and the likes which mandate those mappings.
Regards, -- Nir Arad ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chirayu Patel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'IPng mailing list'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "'Nir Arad'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 12:50 PM Subject: RE: IPv6 -> MAC multicast address mapping > Hi Nir, > > My thoughts... Add the validation check! It does not seem to be expensive. > One scenario where is this check might be useful is to prevent > identification of the OS running on the router; the assumption is that not > checking the mapping is/will be atypical behavior. :-) > > CP > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Nir Arad > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 6:23 PM > To: IPng mailing list > Subject: IPv6 -> MAC multicast address mapping > > Hi, > > Should a node (a router) check the validity of the mapping of IPv6 multicast > destination address into the Ethernet MAC multicast address? > > I didn't find this requirement anywhere, and perhaps there shouldn't be one, > but I wanted to provoke some thought on this issue. > Could there be a security issue? Perhaps other issues? > > Regards, > > -- Nir Arad > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
