Hi Dusan,
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 12:37:24 -0500
"Dusan Mudric" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there a mechanism to protect against a denial of service attack using
> prefixes with very small Valid Lifetimes? RFC 2462, section 5.5.3 e) talks
> about it but does not seam to cover the scenario where:
>
>
2010/2/2 Dusan Mudric :
> Hi,
>
> Is there a mechanism to protect against a denial of service attack using
> prefixes with very small Valid Lifetimes? RFC 2462, section 5.5.3 e) talks
> about it but does not seam to cover the scenario where:
>
> 1) A user defines a small Preferred and Valid Lifetim
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
> or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
I see the telechat is scheduled for tomorrow.
I will wait.
Regards,
Seiichi
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> OK, we do disagree about that ;-)
>
>
OK, we do disagree about that ;-)
On 2010-02-03 10:23, black_da...@emc.com wrote:
> The concern is not whether it is required (MUST) vs. recommended
> (SHOULD), but rather than the canonical form is not sufficiently
> specified. Towards that end we disagree on the level of need for
> pseudocode.
David,
The problem is that we cannot make this a required format. Like it or
not, there is a range of ways to represent an IPv6 address in text
form, and has been for many years. 2001:DEAD:BEEF:: and 2001:deAd:BEeF::
are the same address.
The draft is very precise on this point:
The
recomm
Hi,
Is there a mechanism to protect against a denial of service attack using
prefixes with very small Valid Lifetimes? RFC 2462, section 5.5.3 e) talks
about it but does not seam to cover the scenario where:
1) A user defines a small Preferred and Valid Lifetimes (i.e.,
10sec a
