Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-v6ops-rogue-ra

[Samuel Weiler <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the explanation re: why the malicious RA text was removed.

On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Tim Chown wrote:

[reordering text for ease of reading]

>> Second, I'm surprised that the only end-host based solutions are 
>> staticly-configured packet filters (3.7) and delays (3.9).  Why not 
>> simply "try, try again": accept multiple RAs, see which ones work, 
>> and discard (or at least don't use) the rest?
>
> On your second point, yes, in theory, but you're pretty much 
> stepping into multihomed host solutions which are rather out of 
> scope for this draft.  For genuine multiple RAs (or RAs with 
> multiple prefixes) there's also RFC3484 address selection.  What our 
> draft basically says is that unintended RAs can cause 'badness', and 
> here are some solutions to them that enterprise administrators could 
> apply.

I'm not convinced that "test before use" is necessarily equivalent to 
multihoming.  And the doc is already covering some host-based 
mitigations (in 3.7 and 3.9).  Why discard this one?

-- Sam