On Jul 12, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Philip Homburg wrote: > In your letter dated Tue, 12 Jul 2011 06:45:59 -0700 you wrote: >> we had a couple of suggestions. >> >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-gashinsky-v6nd-enhance-00.txt > > Yes, but I prefer something triggered by a router then just requiring > host to do something occasionally on their own.
You can't have two-party communication have only one part (the router) perform all the actions. Is there a specific part of the above draft that you think should be changed? In what manner? I happen to think that it's not desirable to have any network element under attack, but the ideas in the draft seem to be well thought out, but perhaps not clearly stated enough for your needs? (and with the least amount of protocol changes necessary, infact i believe only one, the rest could be seen as implementation details that would result in a lab failure and failure of RFP with noncompliant vendors). - Jared -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
