[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: rogue RA problem statement

To: Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu>, Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: rogue RA problem statement
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:17:23 -0800
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Cc: "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <20080212163720.B473@mignon.ki.iif.hu>
References: <20080209085845.682F53A8176@core3.amsl.com> <BF2E98E2-FCA9-4C0A-882C-9256E59CB49E@cisco.com> <20080212145120.GL30232@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <20080212163720.B473@mignon.ki.iif.hu>

> > 4) The issues with RAs are why people seem keen to use DHCPv6, and the
> > same people do ask about DHCPv6 default router options (regardless of
> > the (lack of) security with DHCPv6 itself).
>
> Currently the DHCPv6 is rather loosely integrated in most of the
> operating systems....

It would be interesting to compare practical solutions to "Rogue RA" and "DHCPv6 spoofing". Is one harder than the other, and why?

-- Christian Huitema

References:
- Initial agenda for IETF 71
  - From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
- Re: rogue RA problem statement
  - From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Re: rogue RA problem statement
  - From: Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu>

Prev by Date: Re: rogue RA problem statement
Next by Date: Re: 6rd - Rapid Deployment on existing IPv4 infrastructures - a new approach
Previous by thread: Re: rogue RA problem statement
Next by thread: RE: rogue RA problem statement
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread