On 12/21/2011 15:52, Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote:
Hi Doug,
Sort of surprised that no one else has responded so far, but I'll
bite. Quite simply, no. Slightly less simply, use DHCP since
that's what it's for.
I wish it were this simple.
Well good news for you then, it IS that simple.
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 : IPv6 UDP Checksum Considerations
Author(s) : Godred Fairhurst
Magnus
* Fernando Gont:
Hello, Florian,
On 12/20/2011 07:00 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
cut here
IPv6 allows packets to contain a Fragment Header, without the packet
being actually fragmented into multiple pieces. Such packets
typically result from hosts that have received an
Hi Jonathan,
Some comments and questions below.
Robert
On 22/12/2011 6:02 PM, Jonathan Hui wrote:
On Dec 22, 2011, at 9:24 AM, Mukul Goyal wrote:
Again, just because you received a message on an interface for which you've
enabled RPL doesn't mean you know the message came from a router
If a packet, carrying an SRH, is received over an interface not in RPL domain,
it is discarded. Thus, an attack may only be mounted within an RPL domain.
Also, a packet, carrying an SRH, cant be sent over an interface not in RPL
domain. So, any attack can not propagate beyond the RPL domain.
To alleviate some of the usual security concerns with source routing, we want
to limit the scope if where attacks can be initiated.
Any outside attacker can fabricate a SRH and send it to a RPL router. How do
you prevent that without some way of limiting the scope?
Also, Mukul's proposal is
On 12/21/2011 15:52, Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote:
...
Today, we can get NTP server information only with DHCP. DHCP only
works after RAs have been processed. In some environments (mobile
IPv6) delays in acquiring NTP and other servers information is
critical and waiting for DHCP to come up
