Re: turning on comcast v6

[Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>]

On Jan 5, 2014, at 11:44 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:

> If Joe Home User has a rogue device spewing RA's, he probably has a bigger
> problem than just not having RA Guard enabled.  He either has a badly
> misconfigured router (and one that's disobeying the mandate to not RA
> if you don't have an uplink), or he has a compromised malicious host.
>
> In either case, he's got bigger fish to fry.

"mandate" isn't the right description.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6059

There is a ~3 year old _proposed standard_ for the behavior you describe.

I have yet to see any compliant equipment at $LocalBigBox, but maybe I'm
not purchasing the right gear.

So yet again, the response I get to "ra's are fragile" is "deploy this
brand new band-aid that can't be purchased yet".

Can we just have DHCPv6, please?  How many dozens of technologies are we
going to invent to try and avoid putting a default route in DHCP?

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail