Since I likely won't be on the telechat when this rolls around; I'll
probably change it to "no further discussion" when it becomes clear that
someone else is holding this token.
--On 28. mars 2003 16:33 -0500 IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
wrote:
Harald Alvestrand [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ]
DISCUSS:
Security language should say "We are operating in a zone where security is
impossible anyway, so this protocol doesn't make the net more vulnerable
than it already is".
If I understand it correctly, a rogue on a link can overload that link by
announcing the presence of a router on that link if other links on the
switch have huge amounts of multicast sourced traffic.
COMMENTS:
I think glomming this onto IGMP may be an appropriate choice; people who do
multicast on a LAN are already doing IGMP, so the choice seems no worse to
me than using ICMP. But the choice of glomming it onto ND for IPv6 needs
review by IPv6 experts (if it has not already had it. I just want to be
reassured here :-)