RE: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-03.txt

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>]

Gert,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net]
> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 2:35 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: Gert Doering; Ole Troan; Mark Smith; IPv6 Operations
> Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-03.txt
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 09:33:05AM -0800, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 08:58:51AM -0800, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> > > > Why can't a CPE router send unicast RAs to other CPE
> > > > routers as long as they are not malicious and do not
> > > > in any way conflict with the RAs sent by SP routers?
> > >
> > > How do you verify those are not malicious?
> >
> > The sending CPE has to supply sufficient credentials to
> > prove that it is authorized to advertise a given set of
> > prefixes.
> 
> Which is, as far as I understand, not part of any currently
> standardized RAs.  Are there any drafts specifying this?

RFC3971 is the primary example I had in mind.

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com 

> So while I can see CPE-to-CPE RA as "nice to have", I can't really see
> the relevance for the WGLC of *this* document.
> 
> Gert Doering
> --
> Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  144438
> 
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279