2009/11/9 Arifumi Matsumoto <arif...@nttv6.net>: > Erik, > > On 2009/11/10, at 10:43, Erik Kline wrote: > >>> If the latter paragraph only should be executed, the address given >>> by rogue RA remains, right ? >> >> My reading would be that on receipt of a 0-lifetime RA that only the >> second paragraph would be executed (lifetime timeout). > > Second to that. > >> However, all >> hosts receiving the 0-lifetime RA would then have to recompute the >> next-hop, which in /some/ cases may require sending a RS (which the >> rogue RA node would presumably hear and re-answer). (Of course I >> haven't verified this against any implementation :) > > I fail to get your point. > Requiring sending a RS leads to ... ? > > Even if that RS fails, it does not have any effect on the given > addressby rogue RA, right ? > >
I was contemplating the case where you might want to run a rogue-ra-killer on a node that listens for RAs, knows which one are valid, and sends 0-lifetimes for all the rogues. My point was that if a node decides it needs to re-RS then the rogue RA node probably continues to reply (as does the rogue-ra-killer). Maybe this doesn't actually happen though because most/all nodes would have also received the valid RA and would just update next-hop information using that data. Just me speculating idly on a weird situation... -Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
