At Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:08:07 +0300 (EEST), Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> + /* > + * According to recent IETF discussions, it is not a good idea > + * to accept a NS from an address which would not be deemed > + * to be a neighbor otherwise. This point is expected to be > + * clarified in future revisions of the specification. > + */ > > I wonder if off-list discussion qualifies as "IETF discussion". Or > has this been raised on a list somewhere? > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/netinet6/nd6_nbr.c.diff?r1=1.52;r2=1.53 > > I guess we have a problem. It was me who suggested the comment, so if the wording surprised you it was my fault. I meant by "IETF discussion" a series of e-mail threads including this one: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg09544.html and although I've not seen a clear consensus my understanding is that we at least saw a problematic case in the current specification, specifically, this bullet of the on-link definition (RFC4861) - any Neighbor Discovery message is received from the address. that's the rational of "it is not a good idea". But just as I said I've not seen a consensus about how to deal with this in the specification, so I only indicated an expectation of future "clarification". Aside from the possibly inappropriate comment wording, does that address your concern? --- JINMEI, Tatuya Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
