On Jul 13, 2011, at 9:51 AM, RJ Atkinson wrote: > On Weds 13 July 2011 at 11:54:08 -0400, Joel Halpern wrote: >> There appear to be several different cases, which can be addressed >> by different reasonable mechanisms (not firewalls, and not lengthening >> the subnet prefix.) >> >> For ISPs, I would assume the primary concern is routers connecting >> to subnets used to provide services. A non-dynamic approach to ND >> can address that. >> >> For ISPs providing bridged residential services, the ISP normally >> operates on the basis that it gets registration information >> from all the devices in the home. Thus, it does not need >> to generate ND solicitations. > > Agreed. > > I do think it would be useful to have an informational document > that describes the issue, describes the several cases, and outlines > some reasonable mechanisms (possibly separate mechanisms for each case), > both for the benefit of network operations folks and also for > the benefit of equipment suppliers.
we discussed some possible (but certainly incomplete) mitigations in: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gashinsky-v6nd-enhance-00 but we also proposed changes to v6nd so that's why we brought it to 6man > Perhaps I am confused, but such a document sounds more like an IPv6 Ops WG > item than an IPv6 WG item. So I'm wondering whether this thread belongs > over there rather than here. possibly, probably it straddles both groups. > Yours, > > Ran > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
