I changed the subject because I believe this is a separate issue.
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 17:40:44 -0800 (PST),
> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> This issue was originally posted by Ken Powell in February 2000:
>> I was able to force the preferred lifetime to zero by reconfiguri
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 17:40:44 -0800 (PST),
> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> My suggestion to the second point is that we should also ignore the
>> preferred lifetime if the valid lifetime is ignored due to the
>> two-hour rule.
> In my example of the incorrectly advertised pr
> So my first point is that we should clearly specify how the preferred
> lifetime is updated in 5.5.3 e) of rfc2462bis, mainly for normal
> cases. My second point is what we should do about the preferred
> lifetime when the valid lifetime is ignored due to the two-hour rule.
>
> My suggestion to
> 1) update the preferred lifetime regardless of whether the valid
>lifetime is accepted or not wrt the "two-hour" rule
> 2) update the preferred lifetime only when the valid lifetime is
>accepted
> 3) leave this as implementation dependent
> The KAME/BSD implementation behaves as option 1
> What do you mean by "omitted 'two-hour' rule"? KAME implements the
> two-hour rule just as specified in RFC2462 with one exception:
> omitting the following part of 5.5.3 e)
>
>2) If ...(snip) and the
> received Lifetime is less than or equal to StoredLifetime,
>
> since this
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:10:37 +0200,
> Jari Arkko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> This document doesn't say anything about preferred lifetimes from this
>> part to the end of this section.
> Oops. This could cause all addresses to go deprecated. That in itself
> may not be too dangerous, h
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:17:44 +0100,
> Francis Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>The current RFC2462 describes in Section 5.5.3 e) how the valid
>lifetime of an autoconfigured address is updated, considering the
>avoidance of DoS attack with too short lifetimes.
> => the DoS
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 11:35:53 +0900,
> "S. Daniel Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> The KAME/BSD implementation behaves as option 1. However, it seems to
>> me that option 2 makes much more sense because a rejected valid
>> lifetime indicates a possibility of attack and the other parts
> If so, it should make sense to recover this part in rfc2462bis.
> Possible options include:
>
> 1) update the preferred lifetime regardless of whether the valid
>lifetime is accepted or not wrt the "two-hour" rule
> 2) update the preferred lifetime only when the valid lifetime is
>accep
In your previous mail you wrote:
The current RFC2462 describes in Section 5.5.3 e) how the valid
lifetime of an autoconfigured address is updated, considering the
avoidance of DoS attack with too short lifetimes.
=> the DoS attack is about valid lifetime only because when a valid
lifeti
JINMEI Tatuya wrote:
While working on the rfc2462bis (stateless address autoconf) work,
I've found a new issue, and would like to hear opinions.
The current RFC2462 describes in Section 5.5.3 e) how the valid
lifetime of an autoconfigured address is updated, considering the
avoidance of DoS attack
11 matches
Mail list logo
