Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 router option

[John Jason Brzozowski <john_brzozowski at cable.comcast.com>]

Hemant,

Do you think there is a case where a rogue RA would occur in a DOCSIS
network?  I am not sure I am following where you are going here.

Are you saying the another mechanism will now be required because a default
router option will be sent via DHCPv6?  When a default router option is sent
via DHCPv6 this value is generally administratively configured, what form of
protection would be required?

John
=========================================
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Corporation
e) mailto:john_brzozowski at cable.comcast.com
m) 609-377-6594
=========================================


> From: Hemant Singh <shemant at cisco.com>
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:59:09 -0400
> To: Ralph Droms <rdroms at cisco.com>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon at nominum.com>
> Cc: dhc WG <dhcwg at ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 router option
> 
>> * "RA guard" to filter and limit the scope of misconfigured RAs
>> * a DHCP option, to be sent with the initial DHCP message exchange,
>> signaling the host to ignore all future RAs
> 
>> We need to continue the discussion; let's focus on how to allow both
>> methods of configuration to coexist.
> 
> 
> Ralph,
> 
> You see one obvious problem here?  With only ND and RA we have a RA
> guard solution to deal with for rouge RAs or misconfigured RAs.  With
> DHCPv6 option now we have to think of two solutions for most such
> problems in an IPv6 network.  Interesting use of our times....
> 
> Hemant
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg