Hi, > > 6. In section 8, you give one recommended method for NUD > > between CEs and BRs, so what is recommended for NUD > > between CEs and BRs? > > I'm not quite sure what you mean here?
Sorry for ambiguity. I was asking, can the method described in sec8 for reachability detection between a CE and a BR apply to reachability detection between CEs. But after the second thought, I realised it contradicts receiving rules described in sec9.2 for CEs if it apply to the reachability detection between CEs. Sorry for bother ;) > > 7. It is still hard for me to get to looping issues described in > > section 12, it would help if an example was there. > > yes, me too. ;-) > check out: > http://www.townsley.net/ietf76/townsley-ietf76-softwires-6rd-update.pdf > > and Nakibly and Arov's > [USENIX09 > ] > Nakibly, G. and M. Arov, "Routing Loop Attacks using IPv6 > Tunnels, USENIX WOOT", August 2009. > > > I'll add an informative reference to this paper. Thanks for the information. Unfortunately, the most important pdf pages are blank because of "token type not recognized" and the reference you are refering to seems unavailable to me (via google). Could you point out alternatives to help understand the looping attack? Thanks. > > 15. para2, sec9: > > > > IPv6 packets from a CE are encapsulated in IPv4 packets when they > > leave the site via its CE WAN Side interface. The CE IPv4 address > > > ^^^ A > > MUST be configured to send and receive packets on this interface. > > "A"? Should the "The" the second sentence starts with be "A" instead? washam _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
