On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Fred Templin wrote: > I'm not sure whether this is what Alex was saying, but consider > the case that an L2 device on the path between routers A and B > starts sending lots of ICMPs along the reverse path back through A. > What should A do in that case? Attempt to forward all of the ICMPs, > or use rate-limiting? > > It might be tempting to say that this is beyond the scope of > ICMPv6(bis), but I see that as side-stepping an issue that can > easily be helped. In particular, if router A can use the same rate > limiting mechanisms in ICMPv6(bis) (or rather, the mechanisms > we finally agree upon), then I think it should do so.
That's definitely out of scope of this *protocol* specification. They're just forwarded IP packets. More often than not, the router doesn't even know it's ICMPv6 (because it just looks at the destination address), and *cannot* even know that (e.g., there are extension headers, encryption, etc.). (I don't argue that it might be useful for routers to deal with a number of bad situations w/ traffic they forward like SYN floods, ICMP storms, or whatever, BUT THAT'S OUT OF THE SCOPE OF RESPECTIVE PROTOCOL SPECIFICATIONS -- if you want to fix the Internet, write documents for operations people!) -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
