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

Re: can you be constructive? Re: pls read the specs Re: Section 2.4, item (f) of draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-04.txt



On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Fred Templin wrote:
> I'm not sure whether this is what Alex was saying, but consider
> the case that an L2 device on the path between routers A and B
> starts sending lots of ICMPs along the reverse path back through A.
> What should A do in that case? Attempt to forward all of the ICMPs,
> or use rate-limiting?
> 
> It might be tempting to say that this is beyond the scope of
> ICMPv6(bis), but I see that as side-stepping an issue that can
> easily be helped. In particular, if router A can use the same rate
> limiting mechanisms in ICMPv6(bis) (or rather, the mechanisms
> we finally agree upon), then I think it should do so.

That's definitely out of scope of this *protocol* specification.

They're just forwarded IP packets. More often than not, the router
doesn't even know it's ICMPv6 (because it just looks at the
destination address), and *cannot* even know that (e.g., there are
extension headers, encryption, etc.).

(I don't argue that it might be useful for routers to deal with a
number of bad situations w/ traffic they forward like SYN floods, ICMP
storms, or whatever, BUT THAT'S OUT OF THE SCOPE OF RESPECTIVE
PROTOCOL SPECIFICATIONS -- if you want to fix the Internet, write
documents for operations people!)

-- 
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
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------