<WG Chair hat off>
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think everyone agrees that per-interface configuration would be a perfect solution and will provide a fine grained control to the user. Is there anyone who disagrees with this ? (Pekka ??)
I find it very useful.
My objection to this stems from the fact that an implementation which
would like to do something like that is likely doing something wrong
in the first place (or something which is implementation-specific in
any case, and doesn't need "IETF blessing" for their approach in any
case), and I slightly disagree with per-interface configuration.
Obviously, implementors can provide whatever mechanisms they want, even those not mentioned by the specification, so even if we don't mention it at all, it would be OK to implement it.
Rather than first figuring out whether to use MAY or SHOULD it might be better to try to figure how to reword the section etc. to be more specific about the recommended method and where it applies to.
I agree that re-wording will help with clarity...
This could possibly be achived by changing "send" to "originate" elsewhere in the spec, and reword (f) to something like:
====
(f) Finally, an IPv6 node MUST limit the rate of ICMPv6 error messages it originates in order to limit the processing at the
node and bandwidth and forwarding costs incurred on the network by originating ICMPv6 error messages. This
situation may occur when a source sending a stream of erroneous
packets fails to heed the resulting ICMPv6 error messages.
Rate-limiting of forwarded ICMP messages is out of scope of this specification.
I don't agree with this last addition. Rate-limiting transit ICMP traffic is useful in several ways. One key area for rate-limiting in routers is when ICMP messages are sent in response to multicast data packets.
Putting this in a separate document seems like a waste of time. It would be a section in the ICMP spec as it relates to rate-limiting.
If that section is added and the clarification between "send" and "originate" is made, I feel that is sufficient.
In your opinion (no reasoning please), the rate limiting configuration per-interface in the ICMPv6 spec should be a
1) SHOULD 2) MAY 3) Any of them is fine for you.
SHOULD for routers since there are many interface speeds. MAY for hosts.
Regards, Brian
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
