> On Dec 6, 2015, at 15:03 , Brett Frankenberger <rbf+na...@panix.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 02:20:36PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> As an alternative worth considering, it could do this with BGP instead of >> OSPF. >> >> There’s nothing mythical or magical about BGP. A CPE autoconfiguring >> itself to advertise the prefix(es) it has received from upstream >> DHCPv6 server(s) to it’s neighbors is not rocket science. In fact, >> this would mean that the CPE could also accept a default route via >> the same BGP session and it could even be used to enable automatic >> failover for mulihomed dynamically addressed sites. >> >> Sure, this requires modifying the CPE, but not in a particularly huge >> way and it provides a much cleaner and more scaleable solution for >> the ISP side of the equation than OSPF. >> >> Most current implementations use RIPv2, but we all know just how icky >> that is. > > How do you secure that? Or do you just assume no one will announce > someone else's prefix? (I can think of ways to secure it, of course, > but none of the approaches for having the DHCP server configure some > sort of prefix access control seem to me to be any better or easier > than having the DCHP server configure a static route). > > This isn't a problem I face, but if it were, I think I'd solve it by > having the DHCP server inject the route via BGP with an appropriate > next-hop.
A perfectly valid alternative… However, lots of people seem determined to use a routing protocol from the CPE. Given that constraint, I was looking at the options available and trying to pick the most reasonable among them. Note: Your concern is equally applicable to RIPv2 and OSPF as it is to BGP. Owen