[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: comment/question on deprecate-site-local-00.txt

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, BAUDOT Alain FTRD/DMI/CAE wrote:
> [...]
> > So, let ask the question in another way: assuming that the "common
> > blocking rule" is guaranted, does it provide some "real" interresting
> > feature ? If yes, then comes the question on how to make this rule
> > guaranted and possibly in a simple and efficient way. If no, we are
> > done.
> I think this is kind of a moot point, because we can *never* guarantee 
> that, any more than we can guarantee that source addresses are not being 
> used (except at *our* administrative border, to an extent).
meant spoofed, here; sorry.

> A different question would be whether a slightly lower "guarantee" (e.g.
> "implemented and enabled on most but not all platforms" or "almost always
> enabled, unless disabled manually") -- or "warm fuzzy feeling" -- would be 
> useful.

Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6