MAC-Forced Forwarding: A Method for Subscriber Separation on an Ethernet Access Network
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: The IESG <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-melsen-mac-forced-fwd-05.txt The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'MAC-Forced Forwarding: A Method for Traffic Separation on an Ethernet Access Network' <draft-melsen-mac-forced-fwd-05.txt> as an Informational RFC. The IESG would also like the IRSG or RFC-Editor to review the comments in the datatracker (https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=11306&rfc_flag=0) related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the comment log. The IESG contact person is Mark Townsley. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-melsen-mac-forced-fwd-05.txt The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html. Thank you, The IESG Secretary
Technical Summary This document describes a mechanism to ensure layer-2 separation of LAN stations accessing an IPv4 gateway over a shared Ethernet segment. Rather than use standard "bridge" forwarding, this document uses a variant of ARP spoofing and address filtering to prevent nodes from improperly sending traffic directly to a MAC address other than that of the designated Access Router. Working Group Summary This document is not a Working Group document and has not been discussed in any WG. Protocol Quality This document has been reviewed for the IESG by Thomas Narten. IESG Note The IESG had serious concerns about an earlier version of this document with respect to its affect on IPv6 and VRRP. The authors chose to make significant efforts to correct the document based on these concerns. The latest version (-04, published Jan 27) is now satisfactory. This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for any purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish is not based on IETF review for such things as security, congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion. Readers of this document should exercise caution in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment. See RFC 3932 for more information.