Subject: RE: Comments on draft-jinmei-ipv6-rfc2462bis-00.txt

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:57:20 -0800

> >> 	my suggestion is to leave it SHOULD.
> >you didnt justify why. makes no sense on an unprotected network.
> 
> 	i did.  you did not quote my previous line.
> 
> >>	agree completely.  if you allow enemy to be on-link you are
dead.
> >>	my suggestion is to leave it SHOULD.
> 
> 	this is just like physical security; if you allow people to
enter
> 	computer room, security mechanisms are pertty moot as bad guys
can
> use
> 	sledge hammer to break the computer.

Well, there are many networks that are open to the general public, for
example wifi networks at airports. 

It is true that a bad guy on-link can do a lot of harm, some of which
can be alleviated by SEND. However, most of other attacks require a
constant stream of packets, and increase the risk that the attack will
be detected and traced. The recommendation to turn off the interface
amplifies the powers of this bad guy: they can kick someone off the
network with a single packet. In short, just because someone broke in,
there is no reason to hand her a sledge hammer.

-- Christian Huitema

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:31:06 +0900 (JST)

> there is no reason to hand her a sledge hammer.

	but then, if we change it to MAY, what is the point in running DAD
	process?  if you do not disable interface (or the address on the
	interface) the owner of the same address will get confused,
	peers of the address get confused, you will do bad things to the
	original owner of the address.  

itojun

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:25:45 -0500

> 	original owner of the address.  

I see disabling the interface and disabling the address on the interface
as two separate actions.

So, I agree that the interface MAY be disabled.

Brian