IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 30 May 2012 23:19 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9570911E80EC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 May 2012 16:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AMk-jpr5cKIt for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 May 2012 16:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srv01.bbserve.nl (unknown [IPv6:2a02:27f8:1025:18::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A5CD11E80D5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 May 2012 16:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2001:5c0:1000:a::223] by srv01.bbserve.nl with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <fgont@si6networks.com>) id 1SZsAk-0000WP-7T; Thu, 31 May 2012 01:19:22 +0200
Message-ID: <4FC6AAD4.4090108@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 20:18:44 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Organization: SI6 Networks
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: RJ Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>
References: <7BAC243D-7B55-460E-B36C-52CA83F12B78@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7BAC243D-7B55-460E-B36C-52CA83F12B78@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5pre
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: 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
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 23:19:24 -0000

On 05/30/2012 05:59 PM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> 
> A better approach for the RA Guard document would be:
> 
> 1) to put together a separate I-D for 6MAN that says approximately 
>    the above (and explains why).  There is probably a little text
>    clarifying that any host receiving an RA that did not comply with
>    the proposed new rule above MUST be dropped by that receiving host.

FWIW, something like that has already been published and presented at
the last IETF:

* <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-02.txt>

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email