This change was made to address DoS concerns raised with having
the default behavior to respond to queries to the All-Nodes address.
Some people have argued that allowing nodes to respond in this
case simplifies an attacker's ability to map out a victim network.
...
Do others have concerns wit
This starts a two week IPv6 working group last call on publishing
Title : IPv6 Node Information Queries
Author(s) : M. Crawford, B. Haberman
Filename: draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-name-lookups-13.txt
Pages : 15
Date:
The draft in the RFC-editors queue now references obsoleted (as of last
month) RFCs. Specifically:
RFC2401 is now obsoleted by RFC4301
RFC2402 is now obsoleted by RFC4302
RFC2404 is now obsoleted by RFC4305
RFC2406 is now obsoleted by RFC4303, RFC4305
RFC2407,2408,2409 are now obsoleted b
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 08:40:23AM -0500, Brian Haberman wrote:
> This change was made to address DoS concerns raised with having
> the default behavior to respond to queries to the All-Nodes address.
Echo requests already have this problem. I have a feeling that it
makes no sense to drop queries
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Brian Haberman wrote:
Some text seems to have been added to the draft that I don't remember
being discussed here. The diff is:
node MAY be configured to discard NI Queries to
multicast addresses other than its NI Group Address(es) but if so,
- t
Hi David,
On Jan 4, 2006, at 16:52, David Malone wrote:
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 04:08:01PM -0500, Brian Haberman wrote:
I have integrated most of the changes I proposed to the ICMP
Names
draft. After my previous note on the subject, I had a lot of input on
the tunnel endpoint text and d
> > => Not in the main text, which is why I suggested above
> that we can add it
> > to section 7.2.
>
> I see. As I said in the previous message (see also below), we should
> first make a consensus about whether this is to be added. Then, if
> the result is positive, we should explici
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 14:25:52 -0500,
> "Soliman, Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Sorry for the late response I was out of the office.
>> > => This can be added to the text at the beginning of 7.2.,
>> which discusses this issues.
>>
>> Hmm, so the behavior corresponding to the foll
