eted by RFC4862.
>
> Cheers
> Suresh
>
> On 10-02-02 12:37 PM, 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
>>
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 and 15sec), and
2
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
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 smal
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
