Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation-04.txt> (Implementation Advice for IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard (RA-Guard)) to Best Current Practice

[Ran Atkinson <[e-mail]>]

Fernando wrote:
> It's not a protocol change, but an operational mitigation. -- for
> instance, there is no change in the way the sending router or the
> receiving hosts process RAs.

Nonsense.  


Rule 4 mandates changes to whether certain IPv6 packets get forwarded,
which is a major change to the IPv6 protocol specifications.


Rule 4 is both a protocol change and (misguided) operational mitigation.  
Rule 4 is mandatory according to this document and will cause certain 
perfectly valid IPv6 packets to be dropped instead of forwarded.  The
rule damages IPv6 and impairs utility of IPv6 in the real world.


The comprehensive fix is to update the hosts as Joel Halpern and Ron Bonica
outlined earlier today.  I don't think that change would be controversial,
so likely it could proceed quickly through 6MAN.  In the meantime,
Rule 4 could be edited and cleaned up such that no valid IPv6
packets get dropped by an RA Guard.

Yours,

Ran