Subject: RE: (ngtrans) DSTM addressing

From: "Hesham Soliman (EPA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 00:42:22 +1100

In your previous mail you wrote:

   I do believe it is important to come up with a solution / 
   recommendation for handling the IPv4 address assignment
   based on IPv4 hosts' DNS lookups.

=> I believe this is about the removed scenario 2 aka AIIH.

That's correct.

   Jim mentioned that there
   will be a draft ready for San Diego, would it be possible
   to have something there to address this problem ?
   
=> it was in previous DSTM drafts (then it is still available,
if you can't get previous drafts, I can send them to you).

yes I know, but I meant there will be a new draft that includes 
the removed option form the old DSTM draft. Or that was my 
understanding from what Jim said earlier.

   Of course the length of time for the initial allocation 
   would depend on how many IPv4 addresses are in the pool
   amongst other factors, and perhaps it should be configurable
   in the AIIH server. 
   
=> if this can't avoid the DOS, it has a little interest.

I guess that's why I brought it up, because we're trying to 
avoid DOS. So are you saying that even if that time is made very 
short (2-5 seconds ?) then it still wouldn't work ?

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 16:15:03 +0200

=> can you send *only* the text version (no HTML please)?
   
      Jim mentioned that there

   
=> of course the removal is a tactical one, our idea was/is to get a
simpler document without known issue, to do a last call and to publish it,
then to come back to AIIH/scenario 2 after. As you can see we still are
at the first step (:-).

   

=> I am saying that. It is very hard to avoid DOS attacks... Perhaps
it is not possible in this case? (for me the problem is open)

Regards

[email-masked]