[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080109.155544.136768603.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:55:44 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org
Cc: kkeil@...e.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux IPv6 DAD not full conform to RFC 4862 ?
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:46:55 +0900 (JST)
> In article <20080109.153212.144388472.davem@...emloft.net> (at Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:32:12 -0800 (PST)), David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> says:
>
> > I question any RFC mandate that shuts down IP communication on a node
> > because of packets received from remote systems.
>
> RFC4862 tell us that we SHOULD disable IP communication.
> (IP means IPv6 here; IPv4 is out of scope.)
> In IETF term, a SHOULD is almost a MUST. We are required to follow
> unless we have very good reason to ignore it.
A DoS by definition is a very good reason.
> > If the TAHI test can trigger this, so can a compromised system on your
> > network and won't that be fun? :-)
>
> So, I know the specification, but I have ignored it.
> I think it is fine to implent in some way, but I do think we must have
> a switch not to do this.
Because of the above, the existing behavior must still stay the
default. I hope this is your plan.
By default Linux will not implement this SHOULD, it's a security
issue.
I more and more do not like these conformance tests, they leave no
room whatsoever for handling bugs or ill-specified features in the
specification.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists