Re: AD Evaluation : draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-06

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 1:11 PM Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sat, 2 Nov 2019, 12:49 Suresh Krishnan, <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Please use a documentation prefix, say 192.0.2.0/24, instead of the
>> RFC1918 address currently used in the example.
>>
>
> Are you sure this would be an improvement?
>
>
> Yes, I think so :-). Addresses in examples end up being used in real life
> far too often. I am not going to insist on this change and I leave it to
> your discretion.
>

Either way is fine by me. I have a mild preference to keep as is. Jen?


> "Providing all
>>    configuration in Router Advertisements increases security by ensuring
>>    that no other protocols can be abused by malicious attackers to
>>    provide hosts with invalid configuration.”
>>
>> This is not strictly true, right? e.g. Someone can still use PCP to
>> override the Pref64 information from the RA. Suggest rewording to something
>> like this
>
>
> Well, only if nodes implemented the PCP method, which they don't... but
> yes, this is true in theory.
>
>
> Given that the PCP method is a IETF defined mechanism and this document
> does put it on the top of the pecking order, I think it is better to use
> something like the alternate formulation that I suggested.
>

Your alternative formulation works for me. To be pedantic, though: the text
says "providing all configuration in Router Advertisements". If the network
is providing "all" configuration via RA, then it's not using PCP, right?