On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:00:36 +0300 (EEST)
Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > The other one is: if a NIQ is send to a RFC3041 address, do you reply to
> > it? My take is that by default, you should not and have a switch to
> > override.
>
> But I fail to see any use for this. Typically when you implement these, I
> think they'll listen to all addresses ("any incoming packet"). It seems
> that disabling one set of addresses and even giving users a toggle of
> rather little value would be useless. But of course, one might have to
> implement differently too.
The association between RFC3041 addresses and other addresses is what you
want to protect. If you let a 3rd party discover that association with
NIQ then you've removed the little usefulness that RFC3041 addresses have.
>
> But the spec could say e.g. that NIQ's don't need to be answered at
> RFC3041 addresses, and leave at it that.
[...]
I think it should be as strong as the statement about replying with
RFC3041 addresses in NIQs. The reason for not wanting either is that
both allow for the association between RFC3041 addresses and other
addresses. I can't see making a statement about the two cases with
differing levels of strength.
mph
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
