Hi, I am referring to page 14, chapter D. It suggests to remember creation time of temporary addresses and allows RAs to extend lifetimes of temporary addresses.
In original RFC3041 lifetime of temporary addresses could only be lowered by RAs. No need to remember creation time. (RFC3041, p. 10, 3.3 -> 1) .. When adjusting the lifetime of an existing temporary address, only lower the lifetime.) Best regards Peter -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Freitag, 15. Oktober 2004 14:33 To: Grubmair Peter Cc: 'Pekka Savola'; IPV6 IETF (E-mail) Subject: RE: comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-privacy-addrs-v2-00.txt Hi, I am not exactly sure what part of the draft you are referring about, but without the 2 hour lifetime rule stateless address autoconf is susceptible to a denial of service attack using fake RAs with low lifetimes. Can you give me the specifics regarding the text in the draft which you are worried about (section number, paragraph etc.)? Regards Suresh On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Grubmair Peter wrote: >I want to state that I personally do not like the new >idea from the draft to consider total lifetimes of a >temporary address in case of some RAs renew prefixes. >(Previously lifetimes of temporary addresses could only be >lowered by RAs). >This adds additional complexity for the rather rare >event of a sites address renumbering. >Best regards > Peter > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
