RE: Rogue RA WGLC

["Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of JINMEI Tatuya / ????
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 4:43 PM
To: Fred Baker (fred)
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org; kurtis@kurtis.pp.se; rbonica@juniper.net
Subject: Re: Rogue RA WGLC

>This is not 100% correct.  The 2hour rule applies to the valid
 > lifetime of addresses.  Using the term "prefix lifetime" could be
 > misleading because it may be interpreted as the lifetime of on-link
 > prefixes. 

I agree with Jinmei. The document should be careful with terminology
here. Snipped from section 6.3.4 of RFC 4861 is the clear text snipped
below that says on-link prefix lifetime as specified in RFC4862 (like
the 2 hour time extension etc.) is not valid in the ND protocol for
on-link prefix lifetimes.

[Stateless address autoconfiguration [ADDRCONF] may in some
   circumstances use a larger Valid Lifetime of a prefix or ignore it
   completely in order to prevent a particular denial-of-service attack.
   However, since the effect of the same denial of service targeted at
   the on-link prefix list is not catastrophic (hosts would send packets
   to a default router and receive a redirect rather than sending
   packets directly to a neighbor), the Neighbor Discovery protocol does
   not impose such a check on the prefix lifetime values.]

Hemant