Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 11:19:11 +0900
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| do you think it okay even if outsiders (bad guys) can chew your
| bandwidth? i think not.
No, nor do I.
But you are proposing to fix this by special case code. I'd prefer to
fix it by correctly configuring my routing table.
That is, if the only thing out the P2P link in a specific address range
is 1 address, I should have a /128 in the routing table, not a /64.
If for some reason I have chosen to install a /64 for the link, then I
must want all those packets to get sent down the P2P link.
On the other hand, if the /128 is all that exists, then regular forwarding
decisions (with no special cases) will arrange that packets that shouldn't
get forwarded down the link don't get sent that way.
I appreciate the implementor imperative to save me from my own mistakes
(even if purely motivated from avoiding having to constantly tell people
what they're doing wrong) - but please don't do that. Let me make mistakes
and learn.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
