Jeff,
The change to icmp is to avoid too many responses that may flood the querier 
and also to limit DoS attacks of multicast ICMP echo requests. ICMP is 
mandatory so this is guaranteed to work unless disabled on a per host basis. 
The recommendation is to mandate IND and put the hold-off timer in. If IND was 
mandated (and available in all nodes) it would serve the discovery purpose but 
not change the ICMP DoS case.
Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Pickering [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 9:14
To: Pashby, Ronald W CTR NSWCDD-B35
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Solicit comments on
draft-pashby-ipv6-network-discovery-00.txt




Ron,

Sorry if this has already been asked. But why change icmp ehco request
if IND is mandated and is multicast?

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Pashby, Ronald W CTR NSWCDD-B35
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 8:56 AM
To: Pekka Savola
Cc: Jari Arkko; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Solicit comments on
draft-pashby-ipv6-network-discovery-00.txt

Agreed. However, if it is mandatory then there is more of a leg to stand
on in requiring it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 8:50
To: Pashby, Ronald W CTR NSWCDD-B35
Cc: Jari Arkko; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Solicit comments on
draft-pashby-ipv6-network-discovery-00.txt


On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Pashby, Ronald W CTR NSWCDD-B35 wrote:
> Yes, but that is experimental so it is not mandatory to implement

> either. So, again I say there is no mandatory way in which a network

> management application can reliably discover IPv6 networks. This is

> why the draft recommends making IND mandatory.

Yes, so we get back to the main point.  It's not really the IETF's

business to mandate or not mandate certain protocols for

implementation.  If you put it as a requirement in your CFF's, you're

likely going to get a better response.

In other words, if you can convince the vendors and other users that a

feature is really useful, it's going to be implemented... if you

can't, then it's probably better than an IETF mandate which the

vendors can (and _do_) ignore in any case.

--

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
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice: The information contained in this e-mail message and/or attachments to 
it may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the 
intended recipient, any dissemination, use, review, distribution, printing or 
copying of the information contained in this e-mail message and/or attachments 
to it are strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in 
error, please notify us by reply e-mail or telephone and immediately and 
permanently delete the message and any attachments. Thank you

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to