nanog mailing list archives
RE: IPv6 Confusion
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf () tndh net>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:36:13 -0800
Owen DeLong wrote:
... If you want SLAAC or RA or whatever, more power to you. Some installations do not. They want DHCP equivalent functionality with the same security model.
It is always amusing when people equate DHCP with security... Outside of that, I do agree with you that the operational model around DHCP needs to be complete and stand-alone, just as the RA model needs to be. Right now neither works stand-alone. FWIW: there is SEND (RFC 3971) to deal with rouge RA's and other miscreant behavior. Implementations have been slow to come to market because network operators are not demanding it from their vendors. Tony
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Confusion, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Christopher Morrow (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Mohacsi Janos (Feb 19)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 18)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Jack Bates (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion sthaug (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Adrian Chadd (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Owen DeLong (Feb 18)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 18)
- Greedy Routing Rod Beck (Feb 18)
- Re: Greedy Routing Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 18)
- RE: Greedy Routing Deepak Jain (Feb 18)
- RE: Greedy Routing Jake Mertel (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Adrian Chadd (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Adrian Chadd (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 18)