In your letter dated Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:51:15 -0400 you wrote: >Perhaps I am confused, but such a document sounds more like an IPv6 Ops WG >item than an IPv6 WG item. So I'm wondering whether this thread belongs >over there rather than here.
I started this thread to see if RFC-4861 can improved to the point that just an IPv6 router and a bunch of IPv6 hosts can survive this kind of DoS without any extra devices, configuration, etc. The thread then quickly degenerated into something that belongs more in v6ops. But my preference would be to build it into RFC-4861 instead of all kinds of ah-hoc measures (so far we have seen at least long prefixes, firewalls, explicit registration) -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
