Doug Barton писал в своём письме Sat, 27 Feb 2010
01:06:09 +0300:
On 02/25/10 18:30, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the
IETF.
Titl
On 02/25/10 18:30, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.
>
>
> Title : A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representatio
Alan,
I agree with Chris and Vishwas. Using router alert or other IP options
create a DoS vector towards the network elements I operate. If this was
implemented I would certainly filter things outside my network from using
this monitoring.
Internally, if we did use it, we would be very ca
Hi Alan,
Based on working on protocols that use Router Alert (RSVP) esepcially for
IPv6 I have to say that Router Alert is not the best way forward.
It has not been properly implemented in most OS network stacks. It also
causes security issues. Infact there was a proposal recently to reccomend
th
router alert, and all things that depend/need it should die a horrible
death. Stealing resources from my network devices is not a nice thing
to do, ever.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Alan Davy wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Previously we circulated a proposal [Nov 4th 09] about defining a new IPv6
> H
Hi All,
Previously we circulated a proposal [Nov 4th 09] about defining a new IPv6
Hop by Hop extension header whereby performance metrics can be collected
per node along a path. Based on feedback received from the list the
recommendation was to consider utilising Router Alert as per RFC2113.
Aft
