A question on router preference
VISEUR Eric
Hello gentlemen,
I’m in charge of the specifications and design of a network equipment that will embed IPv6 support (yay!). In some situations, this equipment will also make Router Advertisements. Due to the upstream requirements about this piece of equipment being very broadly worded for the IP stack, I made the decision to stick to RFC’s as much as possible.
I recently was made aware that the Router Preference field, as defined in RFC4191, did not actually make it to the standard. RFC4191 is a proposed standard, and RFC4861 and its successors, which are standards, do not include it.
My question is thus : is this field actually used in practice, and is RFC4191 a de-facto accepted standard?
Regards,
|
|
Eric VISEUR |
System Engineer – Incident Manager |
Cyber Defense Solutions – Belgium |
|
Rue des Frères Taymans 28 1480 Tubize Belgium |
|
Find Thales on social media and at www.thalesgroup.com |
Think before you print. |
[ OPEN ]
Eric Vyncke
Hello Eric,
Nice to read your email ;-)
About the implementations, yes most routers send a RA preference of medium and many of them (except perhaps the residential ones) allows for a specific configuration. Also, the host stacks honor it as far as I know.
With my IETF hat, there is just a minor difference between proposed standard and standards, really small [1] and the change to ‘Internet standards’ requires a lot of work, so it is often not done.
BTW, as you are an incident manager, may I assume that you have concerns about the rogue RA attacks ? If so, many vendors have a RA-guard feature (especially on Wi-Fi AP) and there is RFC 6105.
Hope this helps
-éric
[1] see section 2.2 of RFC 6410
From: Belgian Members <Belgianv...@ipv6forum.com>
Reply to: VISEUR Eric <eric....@be.thalesgroup.com>
Date: Tuesday, 23 August 2022 at 13:33
To: Belgian Members <Belgianv...@ipv6forum.com>
Subject: [Belgian IPv6 Council] A question on router preference
Hello gentlemen,
I’m in charge of the specifications and design of a network equipment that will embed IPv6 support (yay!). In some situations, this equipment will also make Router Advertisements. Due to the upstream requirements about this piece of equipment being very broadly worded for the IP stack, I made the decision to stick to RFC’s as much as possible.
I recently was made aware that the Router Preference field, as defined in RFC4191, did not actually make it to the standard. RFC4191 is a proposed standard, and RFC4861 and its successors, which are standards, do not include it.
My question is thus : is this field actually used in practice, and is RFC4191 a de-facto accepted standard?
Regards,
|
|
Eric VISEUR |
System Engineer – Incident Manager |
Cyber Defense Solutions – Belgium |
|
Rue des Frères Taymans 28 1480 Tubize Belgium |
|
Find Thales on social media and at www.thalesgroup.com |
Think before you print. |
[ OPEN ]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Belgianv6Council" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Belgianv6Counc...@ipv6forum.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/a/ipv6forum.com/d/msgid/Belgianv6Council/08b5733f8641471c9e14ac5a1ab6df97%40be.thalesgroup.com.