In your letter dated Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:14:15 -0400 you wrote: > What's the point? > > If you asume unrealistic scenarios to prove your concept, then you >have a problem with your solution. > > The problem is that you have a link where the attacker can have >2^64 different addresses to spoof and it can send NS request at any >rate.
I guess I completely misunderstand what your are trying to say. Without specific L2 and L3 measures, already today, a local attacker can send NS requests for around 2^64 different addresses. Nothing I proposed changes that. So, I said I want to deal with a remote attack. And then you suggested that I made local attacks worse. But now you mention a local attack works already today. So I missing the point to are trying to make. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
