> - As discussed in the context of the ICMPv6 spec revision, there are
>similar multicast respond flooding issues even with base IPv6
>processing before you get to any "application" such as ping.
>Unrecognized destination option, for instance, would cause a
>flood of responses.
Thi
> Right. In addition, the SEND WG had an issue about this as well, when
> they debated the semantics of prefixes in router certificates. (They
> decided to stick with the IPv6 RA semantics. That is, SEND hopes
> someone else, maybe multi6, will make it clearer what the rules are.)
>
> I hav
Tim Chown wrote:
I agree the issue spans multiple WGs and it would be good to ensure that
there is agreement/convergence between thinking in those WGs (at least nemo,
multi6 and ipv6).
Right. In addition, the SEND WG had an issue about this as well, when
they debated the semantics of prefixes in r
Pekka Savola wrote:
Note that when you send to a multicast address, your source address is
checked to be RPF-wise correct, otherwise it's dropped in the
multicast forwarding. So, I don't think spoofing is that feasible a
scenario in "multicast ping".
Right. I think this protection is good enou
Hi Stephen,
Find comments inline.
Regards
Suresh
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>Suresh Krishnan said:
>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>>I guess that Jyrki's thoughts where more along the lines of:
>>>"What if I send a simple ICMPv6 Echo Request with *your* source add
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 16:17:36 +0100,
> Mattias Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Internet
>> |
>> R1
>> +---+---+--+-+
>> | |
>> R2 H1
>> |
>> H2
>>
>> Let us say Router R1 is the default router for H1. R1 connects
>> H1 to intern
Suresh Krishnan said:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>I guess that Jyrki's thoughts where more along the lines of:
>>"What if I send a simple ICMPv6 Echo Request with *your* source address".
>
> Aha. That makes more sense to me. But why should we point to just ICMPv6
> Echo request? P
Bhaskar S wrote:
Hi,
I have a question regarding IPv6 router redirect. Can an IPv6
router send a redirect for a particular route?
Here is a situation:
(It is assumed that no routing protocol is being run)
Internet
|
R1
+---+---+--
Hi Janos,
Mohacsi Janos wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Mattias Pettersson wrote:
I think this is not broken at all. The host should select the correct
prefix according to the source address selection rules. I tried this
scenario approximately 3 years ago on a KAME stack and it was working
correctly
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:34:41PM +, Tim Chown wrote:
>
> For the multihoming side, look at
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-huitema-multi6-hosts-03.txt
> where issues like in/egress filtering are discussed.
[Sorry - I just realised I answered part of your question with your
qu
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:47:20AM +0100, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
>
> I think this is not broken at all. The host should select the correct
> prefix according to the source address selection rules. I tried this
> scenario approximately 3 years ago on a KAME stack and it was working
> correctly.
Whil
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Mattias Pettersson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [This issue spans some WGs but it originates from here I believe.]
>
> We've had a small discussion in NEMO about multiple default routers on a
> link, and whether these DRs are allowed to advertise different prefix
> sets or not.
>
> Think
Alain Durand wrote:
>
> On Mar 9, 2004, at 9:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> > Yes, I appologise for accidentally resurrecting the fixed charge,
> > by typing "is suggested" when my brain was thinking "was suggested."
> >
> > We did indeed all agree to delegate *that* choice to IANA.
>
> Thi
13 matches
Mail list logo
