On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > Chris, > > On 2011-11-14 16:06, Christopher Morrow wrote: >> Just a question about this idea in general, if one of the reasons to >> do it is to save middleboxes from doing 'lots of work' ... wouldn't a >> smart attacker just not put this header in? and then choke the >> middleboxes? > > I could use that argument against *any* optimisation, couldn't I? > DoS is hard to defeat.
yes... it's not super hard :) but I get your point. The addition of an assumption that middleboxes need/want/will-use this is part of my weird feeling about this idea. > >> >> what's the incentive for a source to add this header? (it's not in >> their interest to make things 'easier' is it?) > > Well, you can argue that it's a small price to get a small improvement > in response time from busy servers, but I agree, this would be a matter > of persuading stack vendors to do it because it's good to do it. ok. still seems odd to me :) but sure. >> -chris >> (interesting discussion at the meeting, thanks!) >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
