On Aug 15, 2010, at 8:35 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jared Mauch [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 4:18 PM
> To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
> Cc: Randy Bush; ipv6 deployment prevention
> Subject: Re: Router redirects in Node Requirements document
> 
> 
>> Fixing DHCPv6 and adding prefix-length/mask seems a much more elegant
> solution vs pushing redirect capability upon a large swath of devices.
> 
> I and Wes disagree with adding any prefix length to DHCPv6.  I believe
> Wes gave the reason to 6man mailer during the past 3 years.  Rather than
> spend time to fish out the email, here is the text Wes that captures the
> gist of it.
> 
> "The reason I think one separated prefix length from ND RA and DHCPv6 is
> that the router knows best what prefixes it can route to, and what is
> on-link/off-link, etc., because the router is responsible for the
> TOPOLOGY of the network.  The DHCPv6 server knows best who is authorized
> to get an address, and what configuration information a client should
> get, because it is the  CONFIGURATION/SECURITY authority. These are two
> separate concerns, and it is best to keep them separate.  It's easier to
> manage TOPOLOGY in a distributed fashion.  It's easier to manage
> CONFIGURATION/SECURITY in a centralized fashion."

Oh my.

So, hosts shouldn't have to know anything about their environment anymore and 
this is just proxy-arp & redirects all over again?

Do you know what impact that has on IOS based devices?  I suspect you've not 
seen the operational impact as a result of such items, otherwise you would 
understand how poorly vendors actually implement these features for the 
operators. (Hence me raising the DoS issue).

Even with your aforementioned rate-limit items, this would possibly cause HA 
issues with switchover should a prefix/next-hop change, or a router fail.

Is there a legitimate operational reason a host should not know the subnet 
length it sits on?

- Jared
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to