From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCNUhGIzFRTEAbKEI=?= Subject: Re: Linux IPv6 DAD not full conform to RFC 4862 ? Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:46:55 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <20080110.084655.66182071.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> References: <20080109153656.GA16962@pingi.kke.suse.de> <20080109.153212.144388472.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kkeil@suse.de, netdev@vger.kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org To: davem@davemloft.net Return-path: Received: from yue.linux-ipv6.org ([203.178.140.15]:34741 "EHLO yue.st-paulia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754341AbYAIXqx (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jan 2008 18:46:53 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20080109.153212.144388472.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: In article <20080109.153212.144388472.davem@davemloft.net> (at Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:32:12 -0800 (PST)), David Miller says: > I question any RFC mandate that shuts down IP communication on a node > because of packets received from remote systems. RFC4862 tell us that we SHOULD disable IP communication. (IP means IPv6 here; IPv4 is out of scope.) In IETF term, a SHOULD is almost a MUST. We are required to follow unless we have very good reason to ignore it. > If the TAHI test can trigger this, so can a compromised system on your > network and won't that be fun? :-) So, I know the specification, but I have ignored it. I think it is fine to implent in some way, but I do think we must have a switch not to do this. --yoshfuji