Hi, Le 7 juin 07 à 01:31, Tony Hain a écrit :
> There is no 'amplification', so the abstract is just wrong. No, you are wrong. At least, read that : http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg07331.html > The best this can do is route a single stream around policy; Again, wrong. > and for some the ability to route around the brokenness of an ISP > in anti-competitive mode is a value, not a drawback. Can you point us to the tool/device you are using to do that. > The crap in the document about an anycast destination being > an amplification shows how little understanding And your sentence little reading of the document. > Anycast == 'unicast to the nearest instance' RH0 mechanism allows people to bypass that. > again I say the hysteria needs to stop. True > There is no reason to preclude nodes from processing RH0 packets. > If you > have to say something say that 'hosts must not forward' else they > become > routers. [...] Already said. *BSD did it wrong, but that's just a tiny part of the whole story. Cheers, a+ -- Arnaud Ebalard EADS Innovation Works - IT Sec Research Engineer PGP KeyID:047A5026 FingerPrint:47EB85FEB99AAB85FD0946F30255957C047A5026 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
