The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6

Ray Soucy rps at maine.edu
Fri Jun 10 08:53:06 CDT 2011


I can also take down a network with spanning-tree, but oh wait, we
protect against that don't we.

Maybe protecting against rogue RA to begin with would be a better idea
than waiting until a problem happens.

Just saying.

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> In a message written on Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:37:11AM -0400, Ray Soucy wrote:
>> You really didn't just write an entire post saying that RA is bad
>> because if a moron of a network engineer plugs an incorrectly
>> configured device into a production network it may cause problems, did
>> you?
>
> No, I posed the easiest way to recreate this issue.
>
> I've seen the entire NANOG and IETF lans taken out because some
> dork enabled microsoft connecting sharing to their cell card.
>
> I've seen entire corporate networks taken out because someone ran
> the patch cable to the wrong port.
>
> The point is, RA's are operationally fragile and DHCP is operationally
> robust.  You can choose to stick your head in the sand about that
> if you want, but it's still true.
>
> --
>       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
>



-- 
Ray Soucy

Epic Communications Specialist

Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526

Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System
http://www.networkmaine.net/




More information about the NANOG mailing list