IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Lifetime draft: refresh time should never be more than IRT_DEFAULT

Stig Venaas <Stig.Venaas@uninett.no> Tue, 09 November 2004 16:56 UTC

Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA19672; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:56:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CRZBt-0005ON-0c; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 11:49:57 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CRZ5P-0003oF-1Q for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 11:43:15 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18002 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:43:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tyholt.uninett.no ([158.38.60.10]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CRZ6B-00008x-Cj for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 11:44:03 -0500
Received: from sverresborg.uninett.no (sverresborg.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:e000:0:204:75ff:fee4:423b]) by tyholt.uninett.no (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iA9Ggg3U000591; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 17:42:42 +0100
Received: (from venaas@localhost) by sverresborg.uninett.no (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id iA9GgfmF016359; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 17:42:41 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: sverresborg.uninett.no: venaas set sender to Stig.Venaas@uninett.no using -f
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 17:42:41 +0100
From: Stig Venaas <Stig.Venaas@uninett.no>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Lifetime draft: refresh time should never be more than IRT_DEFAULT
Message-ID: <20041109164241.GC16214@sverresborg.uninett.no>
References: <E0AD8372-3255-11D9-AA52-000A95D6A618@nominum.com> <20041109151735.GH15501@sverresborg.uninett.no> <97FEEA2C-326B-11D9-AA52-000A95D6A618@nominum.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <97FEEA2C-326B-11D9-AA52-000A95D6A618@nominum.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org

On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 11:22:47AM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2004, at 10:17 AM, Stig Venaas wrote:
> >I understand your concern, but I don't see why it should be disallowed.
> >The administrator should be able to figure out what's reasonable in
> >hers/his environment.
> >
> >To use the DNS ttl analogy, there's nothing stopping you from setting
> >a needlessly large ttl value either.
> 
> It's a really phat DoS attack - you send out one bogus message with a 
> really long lifetime, and the information will never be refreshed.   I 
> would argue that DNS needs to have a limit on TTLs also, but that's not 
> my bailiwick.   :')

Which means you don't want infinity either then?

Stig

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status