This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/
[ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Philip Homburg
pch-ripeml at u-1.phicoh.com
Tue Mar 28 13:28:43 CEST 2017
Hi Jan, It's not clear to me why in Section 3.1.5, a global /64 prefix is recommended for PPPoE connections. Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 talk about directly connecting hosts without any kind of CPE. As far I know, the last time that was in fashion for PPP links was with dial-up. So I think that for PPPoE we can safely assume that a CPE can request a prefix using DHCPv6 PD. As indirectly mentioned in Section 3.1.2, assigning a global /64 to a point-to-point link may open certain kinds of attacks. All links with a global /64 risk a ND exhaustion attack. However, point-to-points also risk a ping-pong attack. For a PPPoE link these issues are trivially solved to leaving the link unnumbered.
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]