Re: Rogue RA WGLC

["Rémi Denis-Courmont" <rdenis@simphalempin.com>]

On Friday 21 November 2008 01:22:24 Fred Baker, you wrote:
> > I am just dubious about the DHCPv6 solution. I think it needs to be
> > better studied, so that we understand what (if anything) it would
> > solve.
>
> I think operational folks can tell you pretty quickly what it solves.
> It enables an operator to specify an address for an end system as
> opposed to letting the end system dream one up. There are a set of
> people who think that is important.

That I understand, and I don't question.

*But*, in the face of a rogue RA specifying autoconfiguration, SLAAC is 
re-enabled, regardless of the legitimate RA and DHCPv6 processing. If I'm 
mistaken and the DHCPv6 solution work, then the document should clearly say 
so. If, as I suspect, it does not solve the problem, then that should also be 
stated.

> Given that context, what do you believe needs to change in the document?

I am not very happy with "[DHCPv6] ramifications remain unclear, and such a 
fundamental change to the IPv6 model of autoconfiguration would need very 
careful consideration."

But if everybody else thinks that's fine, then I will simply shut up.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont