So why is "IPv4 with longer addresses" a problem anyway?

[Rickman, Phil]

And Dave one more item.
Suppress of receipt as well as delivery, which I think was his point originally.

Phil 
________________________________________
From: David Freedman [david.freedman at uk.clara.net]
Sent: 31 May 2010 15:58
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.

Dave.