> Le 16 nov. 2017 à 05:07, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> a écrit : > > On Nov 16, 2017, at 12:03 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> wrote: >> This could be an alternative but I can only imagine the pile of changes to >> be done... RA-guard, RFC 4890, ... > > Wouldn't these changes be required as well if you used a different multicast > address?
RA-guard (RFC6105) doesn't mention the destination address as a way to identify RAs. It makes sense since both unicast and multicast RAs must be filtered. Please tell if you know about implementations behaving differently. - Pierre > >> In either alternative (different link-local group, different ND code), we >> HAVE to ensure whether it is doable with the existing HW/SW in the >> routers/switches/AP... I am afraid that this is more complex to change the >> network/routers than the end-points (thinking about OS/HW refresh cycle) but >> I can, obviously, be wrong on this statement. > > Yes. So this is once again arguing for the encapsulation solution. > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
