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

> 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.   :')

The amount of damage that can be done in 1 day or even 1 hour is great. Not sure a TTL is really the device to protect against a DoS attack. However, I think there are other reasons for keeping the max time smaller and those can be used to argue for lower values but ulimately the admin controls the setting.

--rich

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