netdev - Re: [IPv6] interface-local multicast escapes the local node

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5113CB18.1080300@linux-ipv6.org>
Date:	Fri, 08 Feb 2013 00:41:12 +0900
From:	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
To:	Erik Hugne <erik.hugne@...csson.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] interface-local multicast escapes the local node

Erik Hugne wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 02:00:10AM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>> RFC4541 3. IPv6 Considerations:
>>
>>    MLD messages are also not sent regarding groups with addresses in the
>>    range FF00::/15 (which encompasses both the reserved FF00::/16 and
>>    node-local FF01::/16 IPv6 address spaces).  These addresses should
>>    never appear in packets on the link.
>>
>> It gives a strong indication that we should drop these packets. What do you
>> think?
> 
> That was my understanding aswell. I asked for some clarifications on the ietf list:
>     <quote>
>     > The key is that the packets should be dropped without generating
>     > any errors or traffic.
>     Yep, you are right - I assumed that implicitly, but
>     I should have mentioned that explicitly :-)
>     </quote>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg17126.html

Please file errata on RFC4291.  Thanks.

--yoshfuji
--
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