Is the authoritative router supposed to publish the stub router's more specific routes (learnt from the route info options in the stub router's RA) in its routing protocol? If so the security issues with this are much severe than the link local security issues of RFC 4861. If not - then the stub router cannot publish its more specific routes broadly - thus limiting its use.
Simha -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 10:28 AM To: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: RE: New draft on "Stub Router Advertisements in IPv6 Neighbor Discovery" > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Templin, Fred L > Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 9:49 AM > To: ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: New draft on "Stub Router Advertisements in IPv6 Neighbor Discovery" > > Hello 6man, > > I have posted a new draft titled: > > "Stub Router Advertisements in IPv6 Neighbor Discovery" > http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-templin-6man-stub-router Sorry; it looks like this link isn't working. Please try this one: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-templin-6man-stub-router-00 Fred fred.l.temp...@boeing.com > The main idea is that RFC4861 specifies the operation of > routers wrt sending and receiving Router Advertisements > (RAs), but it makes no distinction between different > classes of routers that may occur on a link. This document > identifies two classes of routers: 1) those that connect > a link to a provider network, and are thus "authoritative" > for the link, and 2) those that connect stub networks to > the link but do not directly connect the link to a > provider network. > > This latter class of routers is not discussed in RFC4861, > but the present document provides an analysis of the > conditions under which a stub router may send RAs and > specifies the information that stub routers may include > in their RAs. > > I would like to see this document considered as a work > item under the 6man wg, and I would welcome any comments > and discussion on the draft. > > Thanks - Fred > fred.l.temp...@boeing.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
