[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Operational comments on RAs vs DHC
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
In short term I think logging can alert admins. I long term a kind of
switch assisted solution would nice to have. I am willing to invest some
more time to investigate the problem....
Yes. Though logging has not been very satisfactory from my personal
experience. Even after the "offensive" node was brought down (disabling its
port through SNMP), it still took a full week to remove the stall prefix from
every other nodes. Worst yet, unplugging the offensive host actually broke
everything - it kinda works, albeit slowly and insecurely, as long as the
bogus advertiser is up and running.
I am not claiming that log+alert is perfect solution. For a short term,
until proper solution is in place, it is better than nothing. The admins
knows at least he has to work.... In SLAAC there is no methods to enforce
reconfiguration for that one you should use DHCPv6. However I doubt there
is lots of DHCPv6 implementation supports server initiated
By the way, I think It is matter of time that the poorly
(auto)configured system will use the higher precedence in their RAs.
Maybe a statement would be useful somewhere in IPv6 autoconfig spec, that
higher precedence value in RAs must be used only on manually configured,
and managed routers....