Re: Route Information Options in Redirect Messages (updated)

[james woodyatt <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jinmei,

First I want to echo what Fred wrote earlier in his response to you. I want to provide you here with a response to one particular question you brought.

On Feb 7, 2017, at 10:18, 神明達哉 <[e-mail]> wrote:
> At Mon, 6 Feb 2017 12:07:32 -0800,james woodyatt <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> The idea I had in mind when I wrote this is that we are leaving
>> aside entirely the question of whether or not RFC 6105 has any
>> issues to be identified after reviewing our draft. It’s our view
>> that this draft is applicable in networks where no RA Guard function
>> is deployed. We include this note in section 6 because we are aware
>> that RFC 6105 exists, and our draft is relevant to the
>> considerations that drive operators to deploy RA Guard functions.
> 
> Hmm, maybe I'm so dumb but I'm afraid I still don't understand intent
> clearly.  Do you mean an operational assumption of this proposal is to
> use it in a link where RA guard isn't deployed?  If so, it's far
> better (at least to me) to just say so.


Let me be clear, we don’t assume that this proposal will *only* be used in links where RA guard is not deployed.

We expect it to be useful in scenarios where operators take care to *not* deploy RA guard. We expect it to be useful in scenarios where operators *do* take care to deploy RA guard. Finally, we expect it to be useful in scenarios where networks are lightly managed or unmanaged and operators do not actually know or care whether RA guard is or is not deployed.

The intent of this passage is to inform the community that, in the subset of all applicable scenarios where operators take care to deploy RA guard, this proposal introduces a different method for hosts to receive and potentially process RIO from routers that RA guard currently allows operators to filter.

Maybe we should rather keep the community in the dark about things like this. Let them find out on their own. What could go wrong?


--james woodyatt <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>