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

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Fri, 30 July 2010 11:57 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
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 B1FCD3A6936 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 04:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 jSPffDtd5VqC for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 04:57:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAEA93A68E3 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 04:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy22 with SMTP id 22so630293ewy.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 04:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.213.114.67 with SMTP id d3mr1097791ebq.73.1280491066355; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 04:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-61f2.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-61f2.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.97.242]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a48sm3019612eei.1.2010.07.30.04.57.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 30 Jul 2010 04:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:57:43 +0200
Message-Id: <EBE1B970-DADA-4643-BB75-4EDEDE41F758@inf-net.nl>
To: "autoconf@ietf.org autoconf@ietf.org" <autoconf@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Subject: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? Support only EUI-64 interfaces?
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: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:57:24 -0000

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.

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.