On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 09:19:32AM -0500, Brian Haberman wrote:
> > Title : Automatic Prefix Delegation Protocol for Internet
> > Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
> > Author(s) : B. Haberman, J. Martin
> > Filename : draft-haberman-ipngwg-auto-prefix-00.txt
First comments, and a question:
1. I suggest to swap the "Routing capabilites" with the "Reserved" field
in 5.1 Prefix Request Message; and also the "Lifetime" with the "Rt Proto"
field in 5.2 Prefix Delegation Message.
This way, the 16 bit field is naturally aligned (assuming alignment of
the whole packet buffer) and can be accessed more efficient by a lot of
devices.
2. This one is probably covered by "6. To Do's: additional security
discussion"...
My impression is that there are all sorts of DOS (and worse) attacks
possible if no authentication header is used. (This happens for lots of
routing-like protools, of course.) This must be pointed out in the Security
Discussion.
3. What are the differences between this protocol and Router Renumbering?
What are the interactions between this protocol and Router Renumbering?
Regards,
-is
PGP signature
