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

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 02 August 2010 08:51 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.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 372AE3A6B1D for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 01:51:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.145
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.145 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
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 Y-5cYRwvhskD for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 01:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.166.172.106]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C202B3A6B1C for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 01:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.0) with ESMTP id o728ppXH003869 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:51:51 +0200
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o728ppQs003923; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:51:51 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.173]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id o728poFH005303; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:51:51 +0200
Message-ID: <4C568726.1020307@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:51:50 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
References: <EBE1B970-DADA-4643-BB75-4EDEDE41F758@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <EBE1B970-DADA-4643-BB75-4EDEDE41F758@inf-net.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "autoconf@ietf.org autoconf@ietf.org" <autoconf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 08:51:28 -0000

Le 30/07/2010 13:57, Teco Boot a écrit :
> 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.

I think it wouldn't be good to get around that MUST.

I was thinking about the same thing as you say: if RFC5889 forbids link
local addresses and new Charter wants DHCP then how could both work?

Maybe RFC5889 just discourages the AUTOCONF mechanism from configuring
link-local addresses.  I.e. let DHCP configure global addresses, even
though during the initial DHCP exchanges the link-local addresses are used.

(wondering...)

> 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.

I wouldn't go that far with requiring modified EUI-64 IIDs - why do you
think rfc5889 requires use of modified IIDs?

Let's see first what is the recommendation of RFC5889-to-be with respect
to link-local addresses, and following the WG meeting discussion.

> 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.

I am trying to see where the modified EUI64 ideas come from, I don't see
currently...

Alex

>
> Opinions?
>
> Teco.
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>