Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? Support only EUI-64interfaces?

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Mon, 02 August 2010 16:39 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8BEA3A6ACB for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.006
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.006 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.593, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gk-Tc3KHOIGi for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com (blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.32.69]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 990A83A6A33 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (stl-av-01.boeing.com [192.76.190.6]) by blv-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id o72GdKfN017993 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id o72GdK7v021590; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:39:20 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from XCH-NWHT-07.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-07.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.111]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id o72GdJVP021557 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:39:20 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.64.120]) by XCH-NWHT-07.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.111]) with mapi; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:39:16 -0700
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:39:17 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? Support only EUI-64interfaces?
Thread-Index: AcswuEHaEjA36XEhSW23H225Tf14MQBp8MgQ
Message-ID: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A649E15C4343@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <EBE1B970-DADA-4643-BB75-4EDEDE41F758@inf-net.nl> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A649E15C3F6E@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <DB76629A-3BC9-46A0-BE4E-8E918E6AD63B@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <DB76629A-3BC9-46A0-BE4E-8E918E6AD63B@inf-net.nl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "autoconf@ietf.org autoconf@ietf.org" <autoconf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? Support only EUI-64interfaces?
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:39:06 -0000

Hi Teco,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Teco Boot [mailto:teco@inf-net.nl]
> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 6:57 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: autoconf@ietf.org autoconf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? Support only EUI-64interfaces?
> 
> Fred,
> 
> Do you mean DHCP relay can be used on a node, that request an address
> for itself?

I mean that the client function on a node sends a DHCP
request that is intercepted by a relay function on that
same node. The relay forwards the DHCP request to a DHCP
server, which then sends a reply via the same relay. The
relay then forwards the reply to the client on the same
node, and the client does the appropriate thing.

> I think it could work this way:
> 1) Node queries with link-local to All_DHCP_Relay_Agents_and_Servers.
> 2a) Node acts as also relay and queries with ULA (site-local) to All_DHCP_Servers.
> 2b) If node is provisioned with DHCP server unicast address, it could use that
>     instead of All_DHCP_Servers.
> I think this is in line with your RFC 5558.
> 
> Drawback of 1: it can result in high number of relayed DHCP packets, in case
> of many neighbors.
> Another drawback of 1: there is a timeout delay when there is no relay or server
> at one hop.

Right, but that's not the scenario I was describing.

> For 2a: the network needs multicast support. Could be SMF.

Ack.

> For both 2a and 2b: a temporally used unicast address must be routable. So this
> DHCP mechanism can only be used as a second step, moving from the self-generated
> address to a centrally managed address.

That's what VET is essentially saying, yes.

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> Teco
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Op 30 jul 2010, om 17:40 heeft Templin, Fred L het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > Teco,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:autoconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Teco Boot
> >> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 4:58 AM
> >> To: autoconf@ietf.org autoconf@ietf.org
> >> Subject: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? Support only EUI-64interfaces?
> >>
> >> RFC3315:
> >>   ...     The client
> >>   MUST use a link-local address assigned to the interface for which it
> >>   is requesting configuration information as the source address in the
> >>   header of the IP datagram.
> >>
> >> Question: can we get around a MUST in a standards track RFC?
> >> I don't think so.
> >
> > If the MANET router only behaves as a client on an internal
> > link (e.g., a loopback) but behaves as a relay on its MANET
> > interfaces, then link-locals need not be exposed for DHCPv6
> > purposes. There are other reasons why link-locals might need
> > to be considered for MANETs, but I'm not sure this is one
> > of them.
> >
> > Fred
> > fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> >
> >> The to be posted proposed text for to be RFC5889 would say that if link-locals are used, there are
> >> potential problems when using other than modified EUI-64 IIDs, and therefore must be based on
> >> modified EUI-64 IIDs.
> >>
> >> Second question, on first item in charter: do we limit ourself to MANET routers that has modified
> >> EUI-64 link-locals?
> >> I think: better think twice.
> >>
> >> Opinions?
> >>
> >> Teco.
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Autoconf mailing list
> >> Autoconf@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf