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

[Tosolini, Luca]

an interesting proposal is to convey the default-router in DHCP only; thus making RA less of a requirement:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dec-dhcpv6-route-option-03

Luca.
________________________________________
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.

Dave.