Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Templin, Fred L <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> I hear you, and I am not suggesting any change in the host and router
> definitions. However, an end system that acts as both a router and a
> host has to do something slightly different than an ordinary router
> would.
>
> If the end system receives a packet with a destination that does
> not match one of its own delegated prefixes, it needs to drop the
> packet and send "Destination Unreachable - No route to destination"
> instead of forwarding the packet to another node (e.g., to a default
> router). This is necessary to avoid a reflection attack where the attacker
> attempts to abuse the end system by making it do work to forward
> packets it should not be handling.
>

Wait, what? Where is this documented?