Re: [v6ops] DHCPv6/SLAAC Make Hosts Confusing-//RE: new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem

[Andrew Yourtchenko <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, Nick Hilliard wrote:

> On 29/10/2013 20:52, Andrew Yourtchenko wrote:
>> Thanks. Not sure whether it should actually be another section or not -
>> "Control plane and data plane" - RAs are sent by an entity that is in the
>> path, whereas the DHCPv6 may be sent by an off-path entity...
>
> this brings up another important issue, namely source address validation.
>
> I'm not sure if it's relevant to bring this up in your draft, but the
> requirement to handle snooping two new protocols for effective lan source
> address validation seems to be more than most vendors can handle at the
> moment, which means that as operators we are very exposed to rogue RAs and
> rogue DHCPv6 packets flying around networks.
>
> [Once upon a time, all we needed was vendor support for dhcp snooping and
> ARP inspection.  Now we need an entire IETF working group to handle the
> complication that the IETF has brought upon itself by overthinking ipv6 lan
> requirements.  Is this progress?]

[ It creates the jobs lost due to simplicity gained by the absence of 
NATs. :-) ]

I've captured the non-bracketed part of your comment into a
separate section, even if it is not really a comparison.

Maybe given that all the rest of the bullet points is implicitly "Reasons 
for keeping both of the protocols implemented in the nodes - they are useful 
in different circumstances",  I should create a part "Reasons 
for having only one of the protocols running in a particular network" ?

--a