So why is "IPv4 with longer addresses" a problem anyway?
mohacsi at niif.hu
Tue Jun 1 16:03:02 CEST 2010
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Tosolini, Luca wrote:
> an interesting proposal is to convey the default-router in DHCP only;
> thus making RA less of a requirement:
Maybe, except informing clients to use DHCPv6 ;-)
> From: ipv6-ops-bounces+ipv6=aorta.net at lists.cluenet.de [ipv6-ops-bounces+ipv6=aorta.net at lists.cluenet.de] On Behalf Of David Freedman [david.freedman at uk.clara.net]
> Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 3:58 PM
> To: Rickman, Phil; Nick Hilliard; Benedikt Stockebrand
> Cc: ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de
> Subject: Re: So why is "IPv4 with longer addresses" a problem anyway?
>> one final point.
>> I am curious how you wish to dynamic assign 2,000 clients, for an examples,
>> gateways if DHCPv6 does not support it?
> Yes, I think the point here is "Make DHCPv6 support it" , folk should have
> the choice to use the lightweight, insecure RA or not.
> You keep mentioning "suppression" with regards to RA and confusing it with
> some form of security, I think Nick is alluding to the ability of parties to
> inject rogue RA into a network and for it to be accepted, one possible
> solution to this is
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-05> which has yet to
> be implemented in mainstream equipment.
More information about the ipv6-ops