Re: 6to4 usage scenarios

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I'm not blind- I am quite aware that the BGP4+ scenario is
> not deployed. I simply wanted to make it clear that when we
> designed 6to4, we did think about the need to establish some sort
> of relationship between relays and their "customer" routers.
> It doesn't surprise me that we've now discovered that such
> a relationship is needed to reduce the spoofing risk.

Ok -- such stressing seemed like denying the problem, "this should not
have happened if you did XXX like we were supposed to ".  It seems
apparent that static routes were probably added as a patch at a later
stage, and peopled failed to see a change in the big picture.  But this is 
irrelevant.
 
> Any suggestions on how to create such a relationship?

I think section 6.3.2 of my draft discusses (very roughly) one approach at
the problem.  Of course, it still needs a lot of work if it's seen as an
approach worth investigating more.  This is something I'd like feedback 
on.

Some others have been proposed too. (IMO, I believe a solution like 
neighbor affiliation is not really scalable in the global case.)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords