In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Chown writes:
>On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:03:11PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
>>
>
>> One general worry is whether the RA's are the right place for doing
>> something like this, and whether this includes "RA explosion".
>
>Indeed. If hosts trust RAs to determine addressing and default routing,
>then DNS is a next logical step.
It's your local router you're trusting; that's generally reasonable.
I'm not at all wedded to the idea of using RA, but it's an existing
message that's already distributing site-specific information such as
prefix. I'm open to any other suggestions.
> Beyond that, how much creeping featurism
>do we wish to add?
>
Personally, I'd rather use real security protocols. But I'd much
prefer my scheme to site-locals...
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
